uberkuh

From here:

“Faith is not based on science,” Mr. Campbell said. “And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks.”

“But I do,” he added, “expect you to understand it.”

I applaud Mr. Campbell and Florida’s Department of Education for embracing evolution as a fundamental part of science education. And I understand Mr. Campbell’s strategy behind his presentation. However, I cannot agree with his reasoning.

Faith is always based on something and that something is always a product of our experience, even if it does not exist. Faith, like any mental construct, is experiential. And because it is experiential, it is, like any mental construct, amenable to scientific exploration.

So, while faith might not be based on science, it is misleading to imply, as Mr. Campbell seems to be doing, that faith is not open to scientific scrutiny.

As an aside, I noticed from this graphic that Florida stands out as a progressive Southern state, while Iowa unfortunately stands out for the opposite reasons (i.e., northern and regressive).

It was inevitable that the opening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a film starring former Nixon writer and game show host Ben Stein, would revive the Intelligent Design (ID) debate in the U.S. A quick search of Google News shows what film critics think of this film. And websites like Expelled Exposed show what atheists think.

The more I think about ID, the more it seems to be an inevitable reaction to two modern realities, science and technology. The evolution of science and technology is causing the extinction of older, less scientific beliefs and methodologies, like Biblical creationism and faith healing, for example. Because of this, those who hold less scientific beliefs and practice less scientific methodologies are being forced to either change their beliefs and habits or become essentially less fit to survive.

When I listen to Stein in the Expelled trailer, his words seem laughable to me. From the handful of reviews I have read, many people feel the same. I find his words laughable because, at the beginning of the trailer, he admits that he is equating ID with religious belief, while at the same time trying to resolve it with science. It’s like he just doesn’t get that religion isn’t science and never will be.

It also astonishes me that Stein is so grossly ignorant about evolution. He seems to think that evolution is a completely random process. And he jokingly (I think) equates it with causing life to exist from mud and lightning strikes. Why has he not learned about evolution before critiquing it or becoming a spokesperson for those who do? No, it must be the same old story. He has simply ignored the facts and presumed that his religious beliefs remain intact.

From what I have learned, I can confidently conclude that evolution is a fact of life. Evolution is life. Life evolves. If religious beliefs are incompatible with evolution, then those beliefs are wrong. Or, perhaps, they are misunderstood. We are imperfect creatures, after all.

The How or the Why

Theists argue that science and religion can work together because science answers the “how” and religion answers the “why.” In other words, science tells us how the universe works, while religion tells us why it works. The argument made is that these two questions never overlap.

Is this true? Consider any natural phenomenon about which you are ignorant of its cause. Take the weather, for example. Before the advent of meteorology, climatology, and daily public weather reports, weather was a mystery to us. Why is it raining today when it was sunny yesterday? Why did I get a sunburn when it was overcast? Without scientists who have studied the weather and technology, like radar, satellites, thermometers, barometers, and sophisticated software, tracking and predicting the weather is often little more than a crapshoot.

The How and the Why

We need science to understand the weather. This answers the “how,” but, according to the argument above, it does not begin to touch the “why.” Yet, when I learn about how the weather works, I find that I understand why it works as well. When I learn about how rain works, I find that I understand why it is raining today. When I learn about how ultraviolet light works, I find that I understand why I get sunburned on an overcast day.

The Why of It All

But what about the universe as a whole? Does the “how” of the universe also explain the “why?” Does knowing how I came to exist explain why I came to exist, for example?

First, we are making a huge assumption when asking these questions. Namely, we are assuming that there is only one universe and that it is finite. It is possible that our universe is one of many, as part of a multiverse, and that it is not encapsulated and finite, but continues forever. There could be an infinity of infinite universes, each of which could have an infinite past and a finite future, a finite past and an infinite future, or an infinite past and an infinite future. And if our universe is one of many or the only one, but infinite, then what does it mean to ask why “it” exists? There is no “it” to speak of.

Of course, we can still ask why an infinity of infinities exists. This does not mean, however, that we will necessarily ever find an answer or that, if we do, the answer will be religious. This is the second point. Religious answers are always partly mysterious, owing to their supernatural nature. Saying “God did it” tells us nothing, especially about the “how,” but equally about the “why.” Remember, God’s ways are infinitely mysterious.

As I see it, science is the only hope we have of understanding why we exist. While religion offers a comforting answer, it is unfortunately never a complete one. More importantly, it is also never a rational one.

The Debate

Those who support the compatibility of religion with science argue that these two facets of our lives form complementary lenses through which we can view reality. Moreover, they claim that science does not answer life’s biggest questions, like those about why we are here. Opponents counter that religion gives us, at best, a blurry vision of reality and, at worst, an irrational and eventually destructive one, while science alone provides us with a proven survival mechanism. Which side is correct?

Prayer is to religion what research is to science. Each is a tool to give us an edge on reality. Prayer gives us comfort and research gives us knowledge. But both give us hope.

The Difference

The difference is that prayer is based on what we want to happen, whereas research is based on what actually is happening, despite our needs and desires. This difference is key, because it shows that prayer not only might fail to help us, but that, more importantly, it is founded on an irrational expectation and serious misunderstanding about the nature of reality.

It is important to mention, however, that prayer does seem to satisfy one of our very real and basic needs, that of calming our fears and giving us confidence to continue living. Science tries its best, but our imaginations are insatiably hungry for answers. Religion, by wishing into existence an all-powerful or otherwise supernatural helping hand, trumps any and all scientific claims to truth. It doesn’t really matter that most tests of religious beliefs fail.

The Decision

So it seems that, although religious belief has little or no basis in reality, it is a major fact of reality that science cannot satisfy our imaginations. Does this mean, then, that religion has some place in our lives? If so, does that mean that religion does us any good?

The answer to the first question is yes. Religion does have a place in our lives by virtue of the fact that science cannot satiate us. But the answer to the second question is no, because religion, being based on something other than reality, cannot ultimately satisfy us, either. Science is our only hope for survival, even if it doesn’t keep us warm at night.

Oh, wait, it does! I forgot about my heater.