Stanley Fish hits the nail on the head with his newest post on the false dichotomy between science and religion. His essay is subtly tinged with the same snarky, self-righteous, combative mood that I experience when provoked by individuals who cannot accept that being scientific -- in the sense of setting all presuppositions aside, observing the world directly, and reporting those observations unencumbered by the limitations of cultural-historical bias, figurative language, or one's own unexamined pre-conceptions -- is either not entirely possible or is not necessarily the highest intellectual virtue.
I cannot fully explain why the issue has become inflammatory for me, since I rarely claim allegiance to any special religious tradition, outside of an ethnic and historical affiliation with a particular Protestant sect. I certainly have no desire to defend the logic of those who would claim that the earth is four-thousand-some years old based on numbers given in the Bible. Perhaps it is simply that the religion I grew up with had nothing to do with scouring the Bible for facts about the natural world or chronologies of ancient kings, and everything to do with imagining justice and participating in practices and dialogues that reflect love (a quality so important to that community that it is personified in language as divinity itself). For many of my peers, religion has served a wholly different, though no less worthy, purpose (for example, one friend conceives of religion as a way of rooting herself to the Earth and to those aspects of life that are cyclical rather than linear in nature; another friend's religion helps him to think through his own personal faults and shortcomings and to seek a sense of wholeness). The varieties of religious experience are many, and the simple-minded characterization of religion as a blissful fairy tale, or worse yet, as a smoke screen standing between a subject and reality, is simply a misreading. Religion is way more interesting than that.
It is equally plausible, I guess, that I am just being defensive. After all, the logic applied by those who would dismiss religion as a "fairy tale" or a "smoke screen" might also be used to suggest that the only old books worth reading are the ones that make truth claims, and not only that, but the ones whose truth claims are still considered true by today's truth-claiming elite. And that is a perspective that an aspiring student of philosophy and literature can hardly afford to accept.
This I will admit: There are plenty of smart ways to be an atheist. But denying religion its complexity by reducing it to a set of claims about history or the natural world is not one of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This issue has consistently been inflammatory to me as well, though I find myself less enthused with this article. I have two points (which apparently won't fit on just one post...sorry):
1.
While I do appreciate Stanley Fish's sentiment that there are no "chainless" minds, and agree that some anti-theists get it wrong when they say the scientist is free of pre-conceptions, the scientific method is the best window we have to reality.
That's because, as you so eloquently stated, Adam, being scientific includes "setting all presuppositions aside, observing the world directly, and reporting those observations unencumbered by the limitations of cultural-historical bias, figurative language, or one's own unexamined pre-conceptions," which isn't completely possible, but is our best look at reality.
Religion, on the other hand, doesn't prioritize critical thinking, being open to corrections, or investigating phenomena through observable, empirical and measurable evidence. That's not its purpose, which is fine, but means that religion shouldn't be considered a respectable window to reality. It is a foggier window than science. We would see clearer without the cloud of doctrine and superstition if we gave up thinking of religion as a lens to the observable world (especially as science becomes evermore pervasive as to what it can observe, from distant galaxies to the inner-workings of the human brain).
2.
Fish doesn't seem to get it through his head that people like Dawkins are most upset with extremists. His assessment - based on the responses to his column - that 95% of Times readers think religion is "a fairy tale, hogwash, balderdash, nonsense and a device for rationalizing horrible deeds" is itself hogwash. He's using hyperbole to make that group seem unreasonable, when in fact I bet the vast majority of those readers would acknowledge at least some positive effects of religion.
I doubt that those readers would deny that religion / church can, for some, provide a social outlet and support group, put oneself in the context of the universe or history, help folks gain a sense of wholeness, give meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence, image justice and participate in practices and dialogues that reflect love (your examples), etc.
But that's religion at its best.
For thousands of years, religion has been used to rationalize egregious acts. As tame as religion today might seem compared to the brutality of, say, the Crusades, people are still performing unmerited acts in the name of religion. It's still used to justify terrorist attacks, unjust laws like Proposition 8 in California, bloodshed in the Middle East, and irrational thought in general. I can't even become a member of my progressively liberal Boulder Mennonite Church without claiming that I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Church kids, including myself back in the day, still grow up under the impression that the stories in the Bible actually happened, that supernatural acts like communicating to a deity through prayer are possible, and that the Bible is the only book one needs to live a good life, and later feel deceived.
Since religious views are starting to clash with empirical data more and more as scientists create better and better constructs to describe natural phenomena, e.g., evolution or the biology behind homosexuality, I think it makes sense now, more than ever, to smack down the idea of religion as a lens to the observable world, and to do so in the name of science.
I think that's also what Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, are after. And I actually think they would agree with Fish that there's no such thing as a truly "chainless" mind, but their focus is on how religion can be destructive, and I think Fish is just getting nit-picky. Maybe he would appreciate non-theists acknowledging the complexities and constructive aspects of religion, so as not to discount religious traditions as a whole. But as long as theologies fail to acknowledge upfront that their stories are fictional, that supernatural phenomena like prayer are transubstantiation merely liturgy, and that science is a far superior window into the history of the universe and how the universe works, I think people like Dawkins and Hitchens should continue to criticize religion.
Once again, Jerel, we find ourselves locked in a stalement as a result of our own stubbornness.
It’s not that Fish can’t “get it through his head” that Ditchkins’ beef is with religious extremists rather than ordinary, benign religious people. You’re right that he could have been more explicit about responding to the central claim that lots of horrific things have been done, and continue to be done, in the name of religion. But Fish is primarily a legal scholar, with a particular interest in the courts, whose interest is not so much in responding to the general gist of things but in analyzing arguments, seeing where they lead, imagining whether and how the arguments might apply in a different situation, attending not just to the conclusions but to the premises, etc. You might call that “being nitpicky,” but in his (and my) world, that sort of analysis is called being careful, accurate, and attentive.
As for me personally, I don’t disagree with the premise that holy texts and liturgies should not be plumbed for valid information about cells, ecosystems, nanobots—the stuff of science. The problem is that your argument is way bigger than your intended target. Here’s my analogy: You wanted to go after a small group of Taliban fighters in a warehouse in Kabul, but you ended up bombing the entire country of Afghanistan. (Or maybe Iraq?) Your targets (at least, the one you indicate in your second point) are those who use religion to justify egregious acts, but the terms of your argument (at least, the ones given in your first point) are directed squarely against religious thought in general. Which is okay, if that is what you want to do, but you should be more upfront about it.
I also feel compelled to mention that your list of bad things that have been done in the name of religion has no bearing on this discussion, one way or the other. Though it may be obvious, plenty of bad things have been done in the name of science, as well. That list would certainly include eugenics, the atomic bomb, inhumane experimentation upon animals and people. And couldn’t it also include, depending on your political perspective, big government subsidies for corn ethanol during the worst worldwide crop shortage in decades? Billions of public dollars for a 16-mile-long particle accelerator at a time when millions of people are ______ (fill in the blank: hungry, homeless, dying of cancer, dying of malaria, unemployed, uneducated, uninsured)? Couldn’t this train of thought lead some (not me) to argue that we should smack down science in the name of social justice??? The truth is, egregious acts have been committed in the name of a lot of things, and not all of those things are inherently dangerous (or even necessarily responsible). People often kill in the name of freedom, for instance. Is the idea of “freedom” responsible for the killings?
If there is any room at all for common ground between you and me, it may be found in something like Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), which I will simplify here as saying that science and religion can co-exist philosophically so long as scientists and religious people know where the boundary lies. Kind of like, you can’t use science to answer a religious question, and you can’t use religion to answer a scientific question. I’m not quite comfortable with that language, but it’s in the ballpark.
For further discussion: Why so many “seeing” metaphors when describing science and religion (“window,” “our best look at reality,” “foggy,” “clear,” “cloudy”)? Is there anything wrong with thinking of “science” and “religion” as languages people use when performing certain tasks? If scientific and religious thought are on the opposite ends of a continuum, how does it make sense that so many prominent scientists, including Newton, Galileo, Descartes, Mendel, and Darwin, have been so explicit about their religious faith?
Stubbornness is being unreasonably obstinate or unwilling to change, and I don't think either one of us qualify for the label - at least, not yet. I have a hunch that we - including Fish and Ditchkins - agree on more than we let on and have all made some good points. I bet part of the apparent disagreement is simply finding each others' arguments incomplete, or each wishing to frame things in ways we find more interesting or relevant.
You're right that I should've been clearer about my targets in my argument. I wished to shoot down not just egregious acts, but the tamer - yet still destructive - irrationality, deceit and irresponsibility that's frequently supported in the name of religion. This could be something as simple as denying the problem of global warming - not necessarily egregious, but destructive nonetheless. Another example: I felt deceived by my church after coming to realize on my own that the Bible wasn't fact; I'm sure many children in much more conservative churches will feel even more betrayed by their churches.
I disagree, though, that egregious acts can be done in the name of science. Science doesn't deal with morality. Science is a tool; it doesn't instruct us in how to use the tool. Religion, on the other hand, is largely about what's right and wrong. Eugenics, the A-bomb, etc: these things are made possible by science, but are pursued and used through political or social means. I suppose some may have said that dropping the A-bomb, or inhumanely experimenting on animals, was justified because of what was discovered from the tests. But this weighing of the ends versus the means is in the realm of morality, not science. I doubt people have actually justified tests like those with "science" itself? People may say, "Ban gay marriage because my religion (or my religious text) says homosexuality is wrong," but nobody says, "Drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima because science says we must find out what this technology can do."
Moreover, science is an arena that actively and deliberately attempts to weed out unfounded evidence and irrationality, whereas religion often seems neutral to both. Thus, people find it much easier to use religion to make bogus claims or justify criminal acts. Ditchkens and I, and hopefully you, too, want to deny people the ability to escape reason or responsibility through religious ideologies of all types, extreme or subtle.
As a side note, I found it funny that the analogy you used to explain how my argument was much bigger than its intended target involved me performing the egregious act of bombing the entire country of Afghanistan.
Other issues:
*I realize that "seeing" metaphors are a bit dull and cliche (and may have even mislead you about my mindset), but I was defending the metaphors of religion as "blinders" and "fog" that Fish criticized in his post.
*I had no intention of upholding a false dichotomy - namely, that science and religion are on opposite ends of a continuum. I appreciate how you think of them as "languages" used for certain (though I'd add "different") tasks. I'm just not interested in using that terminology in this discussion because, again, I think Ditchkens hopes to move people to question the destructive aspects of their religious traditions, and Fish has tried to make fools of them by mentioning how there's no such thing as a chainless mind. My message to Dr. Fish: You haven't made fools of them because you're being meticulous and missing the forest for the trees, and you're distracting us from a necessary critique of religion.
*If you and Fish are all about careful, accurate and attentive analyses, then you won't mind me pointing out (what I would consider to be nit-picky) corrections for you both. Adam, your statement "I don’t disagree with the premise that holy texts and liturgies should not be plumbed for valid information..." is a triple negative, implying that you think religious texts and practices should NOT be adjusted by scientific findings. Let's move on to Fish. (I actually brought this up in my last post, but you didn't respond to it.) Based on the responses to his column, he assessed that 95% of Times readers think religion is "a fairy tale, hogwash, balderdash, nonsense and a device for rationalizing horrible deeds," which is itself hogwash. He's using hyperbole to make that group seem unreasonable, when in fact I bet the vast majority of those readers would acknowledge at least some positive effects of religion. He didn't seem to be concerned about a careful, accurate analysis there!
Post a Comment