Here is Ruse's question:
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution separates science and religion. (Don’t get into arguments about wording. That is how it has been interpreted.) You cannot legally teach religion in state schools, at least not in biology and other science classes. That was the issue in Arkansas and Dover. (I am not talking about current affairs or like courses.) But now ask yourself. If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?Let me field that one, Michael.
"God exists" is NOT a fundamentally religious claim. "God does not exist" is not a fundamentally scientific one. The specific reason WHY the claims are made is what separates religion from science.
This question is a point of confusion only for those who argue that belief in God or the supernatural is BY DEFINITION, a non-scientific issue, something that I have argued in the past is bullshit. Science makes claims about things that are real vs. imaginary, not things that are "natural" vs. "supernatural", and the latter terms don't really mean anything anyway. If the REALITY of the "supernatural" (i.e. forces acting outside of the known laws of physics and chemistry) could be demonstrated by repeatable scientific testing, they would be scientific...but it can't, so it is unscientific, and also therefore probably imaginary (i.e. bullshit).
Disbelief in God is not necessarily scientific; people can certainly reject God for irrational and emotional reasons (although this is not the case for most atheists I know), just as they can accept His existence for irrational and emotional reasons. However, atheism as I "practice" it is scientific. Rejecting claims for which there is no evidence is about as scientific as you can get.
Ruse's confusion is yet another reason why I consider the NOMA approach to be not just misleading, but downright destructive of to our understanding of what it is that science actually does. If Michael Ruse, someone who has been writing on the Creationism-Evolution debate for some time, can actually be confused about why rejection of the supernatural is a scientific AND non-religious position, how can the general public be expected to understand what science is at all?
LNJ
Posts
2 comments:
On your argument, it would either be perfectly Constitutional to teach atheism in science class, because atheism is a scientific conclusion, or it would be unconstitutional to teach science, because science concludes atheism is true.
Do you think the Supreme Court would agree with either option? I don't. And I think the Supreme Court would be correct to disagree. The theism/atheism issue is not within the domain of science, it is philosophy, theology, etc.
You might prefer to treat religion as just another crank pseudoscience, and you have every right to your view, but I think it should be realized that a fundamental part of the social contract upon which Western Civilization is based is that some things (like science) are matters of public evidence and reason and can serve as the basis for governmental policymaking, government-sponsored education, etc. -- whereas other things (like religion) are about ultimate matters that are not unambiguously decidable on public evidence and reason, and involve private conscience and emotion and faith, and thus society is much better off if government leaves itself out of these issues and leaves the public completely free to make up its own mind.
Messing with this arrangement, or pretending it isn't there, strikes me as hazardous at best.
Nick,
Your statement that the "theism/atheism issue is not within the domain of science" is completely ad hoc, and I have devoted several posts (linked in the article) as to why I think it is nonsense. Please address those arguments if you want to debate the point, rather than just stating it as a given.
This particular brick wall addressed by Ruse has been looming in NOMA's windshield for a while now, and with his argument, it finally goes crunch. If it is the belief itself which is scientific or non-scientific, than Ruse is correct after all. Rejecting creationism in particular is no different than rejecting God in general, making evolutionary theory and geologic evidence supporting deep time as unconstitutional as stating that God probably does not exist. Everything that you said about religion in general (that it is a matter of emotion and faith, rather than being decided on evidence and reason) is true of creationism in particular…and yet scientists are perfectly comfortable stating that creationism is FALSE. Not just a matter of faith, but dead wrong.
Your comment gets to the heart of what this debate is really all about: POLITICS. At some point, all arguments I've ever had on this subject eventually abandon any pretense about making a scientifically or philosophically valid argument and admit to being worried about political fallout. That’s fine, since Ruse’s article illustrates that NOMA has finally painted itself into a legal and political corner.
What you are essentially arguing is that public and political opinion should trump a scientifically valid argument, which is what I argue that atheism is. If this is a valid position to take, if science is prepared to abandon or downplay a scientifically valid perspective (such as atheism) to make the general public feel more comfortable…then why are we bothering to defend evolution at all? After all, it is clear that the public in general is somewhat uncomfortable with the idea. Why not just make the 40% happy and ditch the whole thing?
The public is more than welcome to reject atheism as a matter of “private conscience, emotion, and faith” if it wants to…just as it is allowed to reject evolution for the same reason. Nonetheless, science is allowed to have its own perspective, and our educational system should expect kids to learn what science is, even if they ultimately choose to reject its findings.
While teaching at TTU, I once had a student come up to me at the end of the semester and tell me that, even though they understood evolutionary theory and the evidence for deep time a lot better after my course, and accepted that the evidence for it was solid, they still felt that they had to reject accepting evolution as a matter of personal faith (and this is without me ever having harped on atheism at all). She wanted to know if it was going to impact her grade. I asked her what her test scores had been like, and she told me she’d been pulling a 93% average. “Then you’ll get the A” I said, and she did. I don’t demand intellectual loyalty oaths to evolution in my classes; I just expected my students to understand what evolution IS.
Making honest statements about what science is and what science does not take away from the public’s right to form its own opinions. The problems arise when the public and politicians start telling science what its opinions should be, not the other way around.
Post a Comment