Ditch Magical Thinking

Science has been put forward (at least in the classical Western mind-set) as the most effective way to understand the natural world. Although science is often faulted for being incomplete, or inadequate to the task of explaining all of our experience, it has a unique place in our culture - it explains our world, and allows us to develop effective technologies in a way that magic and speculative philosophy never has.

For example, though someone may completely ignore their health, play the lottery, read their horoscope, believe in ghosts (all indications of magical thinking)– they still get on an airplane (the fruit of science). They don’t understand Bernoulli's principle, so it may as well be imps holding the plane up as a difference in air pressure. The fact that no one rode in airplanes even 100 years ago (or used a telephone, or a computer, or a light bulb, or sat in a car) underscores the 1,000s of technologies that have come from a better understanding of how the world works. Magic has never worked over the entire course of human history, while science has enabled technologies that rival the wildest fables. You’d think that folks would compare the outcome of magical thinking, and the outcome of scientific thinking and draw the obvious conclusions. Still, most folks seem to embrace the fruit of science, while retaining a magical worldview.

When we discover (much to our surprise) that magic is invisible to science, magical thinkers see this as a fault of science, not as an error in their way of seeing the world. Yet magical thinking injects inaccurate, often dangerous ways of viewing the world. Consider the popularity of prosperity thinking (currently championed by no less than Oprah) in a world where we allow billions to face hunger, famine, disease, and early preventable death. Consider our unwillingness to face up to the way we have polluted our world, while ignoring the clear results – declining fisheries, animal extinctions, global warming. We can raise over 600 million dollars in 10 days to see Spiderman III, but we can’t be bothered to address Darfur, the Central African Republic, drug resistant TB, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, acute malnutrition - the list goes on.

We forget that we live in a democracy (that is, we are responsible for the state of things), and let our infrastructure crumble, our children go without health coverage, and our commitment to fairness and decency dissolve, while we seek immediate gratification (and fall further in debt).

At least one reason these things happen is that we fail to see the obvious conclusions science presents us, and take responsibility for ourselves, our community and our planet. Magic does not work, and our culture is not going to be made happy, healthy or wise by magical thinking. We cannot hand over political power to the greedy and corrupt and expect good to come of it. We can’t insist on buying the cheapest goods and expect anything other than exploitation, slavery and shoddy practices to come of it.

Instead, we should be spending our political and economic capital in ways that help build a world in which we all can live. Paying careful attention to the way things are (the legacy of science) is a first step in this process, because it helps us exchange our magical (wishful) thinking for a glimpse of what actually is. Even more crucial are the next steps, where we create a fairer, more just culture based, not on what we wished was real, but based on what actually exists.

Any Room for Faith?

So I've heard that my last post seems a little bleak.

I have to say that this is pretty much how it ... Sorry for repeating the bleak part.

The "On the other hand?"

The experience of billions of people is that they experience patterns, events, feelings, circumstances that cannot be explained by viewing their life as simply a series of natural causes and effects. From answers to prayer, to physical healing, to synchronicities too amazing to be coincidence, the reports of the overwhelming majority of people is that there is some extra dimension to their life - some spiritual component that is required to make sense of their experience.

I don't doubt this. I experience it myself. I am, however, coming to recognize that, however it is explained, this is not what we have traditionally thought of as 'supernatural" experiences. I am not saying that they don't exist, and by calling them natural I am not trying to rule out the activities of God or what we think of as spiritual forces - I am simply suggesting that whatever these things are, they operate withing the natural world.

Why do I think this? Partially because of the evidence science provides, that natural causation is not violated. Before you insist that this is the case, consider that the world of the Bible is not supernatural - God is portrayed as potent in the natural world - Spirit, yes, but not without the means to impact this world.

What We Need to Believe

Reading a review of Behe's new book God as Genetic Engineer, I am reminded that what creationists claim as true, and what even creationist proponents believe can be supported by the evidence are two different things.

For example, Behe accepts an old age for the earth, common ancestors for chimps and humans, and the ability of sequential mutations to increase an organism's chances for survival. He accepts these things, though they contradict biblical literalism, because the evidence is compelling.

Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, given a chance to clarify his views of evolution, backs away from a literal reading of Genesis, and says that faith and science are not in conflict - meaning that evolution happened, and that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally.

What remains? A conviction, widely held, that "all this is not an accident." The notion that some way, some how, "God did it." This is not based on the Bible or science – it is a "gut feeling" that life is not just a series of random events – that we have a privileged place in the universe.

The difficulty, of course, is in getting down to specifics. It is clear that God did not do it as laid out in the Bible (or any other religious text). It is clear that God (as immediate cause) is not needed to explain any part of the world we live in (except to assert that in some as-yet-not-understood way, “God did it”).

Not only do we find no clear evidence of God acting in history or our day-to-day world, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no known mechanism for supernatural action at all. The response of faith is, “well, obviously, science is wrong, because God does act.” That, and the other theistic response - that the things we discover about the natural world, including cosmology and evolution, is how God does it.

So how can smart people like Behe and Huckabee and Brownback live with this cognitive dissonance (claiming both that the all we can know about are material causes, and faith’s claims that all the important causes are supernatural)? They know (and even publicly admit) that the Bible does not accurately portray (when taken even semi-literally) the history and workings of the natural world. Yet they find themselves compelled by their belief to insist that God has taken a direct (though unspecified) role in shaping the natural world, the historical events in the world in the last few thousand years, and in the day-to-day events of their (and billions of others') lives.

Treat this like a large-scale survey about what people need and want in their lives. They want the world to make sense. They need there to be order and pattern and purpose. We experience the effects of this unmet need in the social chaos we see around us - people seeking any number of things (much self- and socially- destructive) to escape pointlessness and boredom, alienation and loneliness.

Science is often perceived as relentlessly eroding a sense of purpose and significance - at best silent, and at worse dismissive of the notion that we can have a special relationship with a supernatural force that impacts our world in a way that benefits our daily life, community and world history. Science earns this reputation by failing to find any evidence that claims of supernatural intervention have any basis in fact.

The implications are not lost on people of faith: absent supernatural intervention, we may not be a special people, and our leaders not appointed by the gods. This may not be not the promised land. The seasons and weather may not reflect supernatural approval or disapproval of our actions. Wealth may not be a sign of divine favor. Parking spaces may not be held open for us by the great valet in the sky. Worse, much of what happens may be as pointless, random and unfair as it seems. Meaning may be where we find it, and love may be where we make room for it.

Of course, this could all be taken as a wakeup call to grow up and take more responsibility for our lives, our relationships, our community and planet. Conversely, many people have tried and failed the attempt to be responsible and proactive, and have found themselves unable to cope with the despair, the open alternatives, the absence of any objective set of values or fixed compass by which to navigate. They turn to faith for certainty, for direction, even purpose.

So the reaction is often to blame the messenger - science. This is normal - especially since the expectations for science and technology are so great, and science and technology has proven such a mixed blessing. Still, the message, such as it is, is accurate.

Science cannot get us out of this mess, because it is not a religion, offers no path to meaning and purpose, and is not, in itself, a foundation for meaningful community.

People seem to need a sense of purpose, significance, and community. We seem to need a sense of our place, and a way to make a meaningful, lasting contribution. We want to be safe, and to be free from fear and want. We obviously to need to learn how to be social creatures, able to interact positively with others – and to do that, we need stable, helpful models. This takes enduring institutions and an extravagant investment of time and compassion. It takes a way of starting over, a way of being held accountable, a way of being forced to live within some limits.

The value of individuals, the right relationship between a government and the governed, an individuals obligations to their community (and vice versa)- these are all tightly bound up with people's moral, ethical and religious beliefs.

Science is not a replacement for faith or morals, but it often represents the only viable alternative to revelation or arbitrary claims of authority. It is can be an infuriating goad to arbitrary authority. Science can be stifling orthodoxy to folks who are trying to think in new ways. Because science makes no claim to infallibility, and yet is often viewed as the final arbiter of truth - (both claims have some merit), science is seen as both autocratic and fractious, authoritative, and as changeable as the next discovery or clinical trial.

The best way to defend science is to build healthy communities of people who, among other things, embrace science as a tool - neither making it an oracle, nor forcing it to be subservient to some other master (politics, capitalism, prejudice or religious dogma). Science is a critical tool exactly because it can help us discover accurate things about our world. When we silence science (as we have in the discussions of global warming, for political purposes, in our drug approval process, for economic motives, and so on) we all lose - because we have diminished our ability to distinguish claim from fact, and are more at the mercy of dogma and demagogues, wild speculation, ignorance and superstition.

Invitation to the Big Tent

While science engages with religious conservatives on issues like scientific proof for a young earth, global flood and special creation, what these literalists are actually doing is presenting the following syllogism:

A moral culture can only be built on the Bible
The Bible is only authoritative if taken literally
Therefore, to have a moral culture, the Bible must be taken literally

This logic has a lot of traction with non-literalists, who want a safe culture in which to live and raise their kids. The world is in fact worrisome, and free-market capitalism has not delivered the promised happy and abundant society.

Science is portrayed as insisting that the Bible cannot be taken literally, which turns out to be seen as an attack on attempts to build a moral society. This puts science on the side of the bad guys. That science is correct in its rejection of literalists’ claims is no defense.

"No wonder society is sick," conservatives say, "if science is allowed to tear down the only foundation for ethical behavior."

You might notice that science is only peripheral to this issue – and to argue for strong science without addressing the assumptions about what is required to have a moral society is to be relegated to the less-interesting part of the discussion.

One approach for science advocates may be to engage in a discussion about what constitutes a moral society. When we address issues of social and economic justice, both religious and non-religious folks can participate – while deemphasizing the importance of special creation and other literalist agenda items. Moderates are satisfied, because topics of concern to them are being addressed.

People seem to be taking note of the fact that we face many social justice issues today. For example, 27 million people in some form of slavery, a growing disparity between rich and poor, competition for oil and other resources with countries like China and India. Against our will, many of us are facing up to the fact that global warming is happening. In the face of the political, economic and ecological crises we face, it may be time to broaden our understanding of what it means to live a moral life.

Science advocates can further the cause of science by noting that our growing awareness of the interconnectedness of life and culture come from a revamping of how we view the world, in no small part due to the work of science. In fact, we need to directly challenge the notion that a conservative religious agenda, with its narrow focus on personal morality, is an adequate moral and ethical foundation for the modern world.

This need not be confrontational - everyone can be invited to discuss issues of justice and the defense of the weak - strong themes throughout the Bible, for example. Rather than lose moderates to the "Big Tent" of ID, why not invite them to a "big tent" of social and economic justice?

Science in Conflict with Religion?

Science is misunderstood primarily because of preconceptions about how the world is (or must be) – that is, we already know what the world "must be" like, and don’t want to yield our preconceptions to the empirical results of the scientific process.

One source of misconception is the certainty that the world is influenced by the supernatural (that is, by some agency with no knowable method of action). This is not to say that God does not exist - just that God seems to use the mechanisms of the natural world to accompish his purposes.

While it is possible to say that, in principle, science and relgion are not in conflict, most science is in conflict with that part of any religion that involves magical or supernatural action (again, action without scientifically observable mechanisms). So, for example, a young earth, special creation and a global flood (but also Native Americans as descended from the "lost" tribe of Israel and countless other incorrect beliefs about the natural world).

The reason that ID-ists distance themselves from mechanisms is because of this conflict. Science describes a world in which identifiable (measurable, repeatable) mechanisms exist for all actions observed in the natural world. Most religions explicitly defend god's prerogative to act without regard to natural mechanisms.

There are two ways out of this dilemma. First, you can deny science. Say that there is scientific evidence for things with no natural explanation (I say deny science, because so far, there is no such evidence). Alternatively, you can define religion to be some sort of vague impulse, statistically indistinguishable from natural causes. The first involves denying the plain facts, the second involves making faith irrelevant (except as a personal mental model - and construing religion as such strips it of much of its appeal and power).

There are likewise a couple of reasons to deny that religion and science conflict - first is to avoid the complete rejection of science by those folks who do think that the supernatural exists, but who have not really looked into it rigorously. Second, because of the recognition that, for all the anti-social things religion creates, it also provides a cohesive social order and sense of meaning that seems fairly impervious to any attempt to stamp it out.

Why Science Matters

An update, based on comments from folks at KCFS.

Why Science Matters
If the world were simple and straightforward, science may never have developed from ordinary observation and experiment. As it happens, the natural world is much more complex and diverse than anyone would ever guess. From the behavior of quarks to the light-years-spanning galaxies in space, from the over 350,000 species of beetles to the intricate beauty of DNA's double helix, our world has amazed us with its complexity, invention and resiliency.

Science unveils a world far beyond our expectations, drawing us from our day-to-day experiences and confronting us with a reality more inventive than our richest imaginings.

Science Gives Us An Accurate Picture Of Our World
From earliest history, philosophers have speculated about what the world was and how it worked. Many of these ideas were wrong: the results of limited perceptions, inaccurate assumptions and often, a lack of attention to facts.

Science is the product of our search for a more accurate understanding of the world around us. Throughout history, people looked at what was happening around them, reached tentative conclusions, and tested their assumptions with careful experiments. They learned from other inquisitive minds, and encouraged one another in their search for knowledge. Science is simply an extension of that quest.

Based on observation, confirmed by experiment and subject to verification, scientists have developed, not just a description of the world, but a kind of understanding that lets us put that scientific knowledge to work. From Ben Franklin experimenting with lightening to Thomas Edison and the electric light bulb is a direct line - scientific research to technological advance.

What has emerged is a startlingly accurate picture of the world and how it works. It is not a complete picture, and no doubt surprises are in store – but the sciences, painstakingly built up over centuries of work, provide a framework of understanding that informs many of our most important perceptions, decisions and actions.

Science Improves our Everyday Existence
It is easy to lose perspective on what it was to live in a world before modern science. People often died young, mostly of diseases that could have been prevented by good public heath practices. Nature was seen as capricious and judgmental. Our ability to provide food and shelter was limited to manual labor, augmented by a few simple tools and machines.

Clean drinking water, improved crop yields, antibiotics, streetlights and the Internet all sprang from an understanding of the world provided by science.

Even more, nature is no longer the province of vengeful spirits, disease no longer the result of someone’s malign intentions, and the physical properties of the world no longer hidden behind a veil of mystery, forbidden to mortals. This understanding has allowed us to solve a host of problems, resulting in a myriad of improvements to the quality of our life.

Science Can Inform Some of Our Most Important Decisions
Many of the difficult questions we face, from genetic engineering to global warming to alternative fuels benefit from a basic understanding of the science behind the issues. By being better educated in the sciences, we are able to make more informed decisions as a consumer, a patient and a citizen.

Science Promotes Common Understanding
Science, with its focus on natural cause and effect and repeatable, experimental verification can provide a common vocabulary and set of perspectives on the world - a kind of Rosetta stone by which we can better understand our relationship to one another, the earth, and all life. This can be as simple as forging a common understanding of the mechanisms that make crops grow, ecologies flourish and children healthy. These common understandings help banish fear and mistrust, and provide concrete arenas for cooperation and growth.

Science Is A Tool
Everyone forms conclusions about how things work. Science provides a powerful means to test those conclusions, and reveal areas where we need to enlarge our understanding of the natural world. A good grasp of science – its strengths and limitations - is one of the keys to better understanding our world and our selves.

Science is one of the most successful, accurate and powerful tools we’ve ever discovered. Like any tool, the value we get from it depends on how well we use it. If we apply the fruits of science with skill and wisdom, it enhances our life and understanding. As we face the many challenges in front of us, we need the unique contributions of a strong, free, accurate science.

The Way Forward

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”

— Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom

Recent trial balloons from the right suggest that the next approach for creationists attempting to make inroads into public school is the notion of science as a "materialist religion."

The argument for creationism is a theological one - "This is how I read the Bible." Responding with evidence for evolution misses the point - which is that some people choose to accept a somewhat literal reading of the Bible over the clear evidence.

While science is not a religion, and methodological materialism is not a faith, biblical literalism most certainly is. The relentless press to establish a narrow, sectarian view of Christianity as the official religion of the US is something we all should resist. First, because theocratic states are by their very nature repressive. Second, because this country explicitly rejects the idea of an official religion (that is why there is no religious test for office allowed in the constitution). Third, because the only people with the energy to push for a theocracy believe all sorts of things that are just plain wrong (like a young age for the earth, a global flood and special creation) that will cause all sorts of pain and damage when they end up with the sanction of government.

So the discussion might go like this:

Q: I've heard that evolution is a failed theory, and is only kept alive by lies and distortions. Why should I believe it?

A: If that were true, you should not believe it. As it happens, there is strong evidence for evolution, and I'd be happy to talk about it, but let me ask you a question first, "are you open to considering the evidence?"

Q: What makes you think I'm not?

Well, for most of us, we have a hard time believing in things we disagree with. For example, we want to believe certain things about our country, our children, our friends - and we have a hard time accepting it when someone presents us with facts that run counter to our beliefs.

It is the same with science. Most people who object to evolution have a particular view of God that they see as incompatible with the gradual development of life over billions of years.

If you accept evolution, you have to give up a literal reading of Genesis. Are you willing to consider doing that, if the evidence is strong enough?

------

Science is on the defensive on two fronts. First, that the evidence for evlution is flawed, and second, science is a religion, and so Christianity should be given equal time. The proper response is to point out that a particular sect is trying to promote their narrow sectarian faith at the expense of the truth, and in the face of the Constitution.