Skepticum

As a huge fan of Discover mag I had to think twice this morning on why Discover would launch a Science and Religion blog, or rather why would Discover mag promote and host the blog of Father Michael K. Holleran, who views science as intrinsically amoral:

I would propose that scientific research is intrinsically amoral; by its own rules, science would simply go out and do whatever it is capable of doing at any time. This is a limitation, but not a fault. Problems arise, however, because its object is often part of a much more complex reality. For example, not only do people do science, but people are often the object of science. What is more, they are not simply the subjects and objects of science, they are also the subjects and objects of psychology, art, ethics, philosophy, theology, and mysticism. Hence, these other levels of exploration and discourse have the right not to do science but to challenge the scientist, when a value known and embraced at another level is threatened by a science that is fundamentally without values. This is obviously the case in the life sciences: biotechnology, biochemistry, etc. Even if cloning, stem cell research, and reproductive advances represent scientific progress, are they truly and necessarily progress for the totality of the human person and for life in society?

As I said, I thought twice, or thrice… or I’m still thinking about it. As a former journalist I can understand the need for balanced publishing content and also the need to attract a variety of readers. I can also understand the need to give religion a voice within the mostly science-focused writings published by Discover. However, claims such as the one above do not belong in a science publication, just as creationism does not belong in the science classroom.

Discover’s Science and Religion blog though tries to marry the two fields, through a poetic if not overly-fanciful way of describing the need for spirituality.

Perhaps what is best in our humanity is what can likewise help reconcile science and religion in practice: the sense of wonder, of openness, of exploration, the exhilarating intoxication that I mentioned above. These sentiments are the inspiration, both Maritain and I would argue, for both science and religion—indeed for any passionate pursuit. Grounded in this sort of breadth of spirit, which is secure, serene, and confident in itself, we can hopefully learn—whether in science or in religion or in any human endeavor—not only to tolerate but to glory in the experience of not knowing. The feverish demand for instant certitude seems a Western neurosis. After all, whether we consider ourselves loyal scientists or loyal members of a religious tradition or both, an awestruck sense of respect before the unknown is the only loyal attitude towards whatever reality is the object of our exploration. As Maritain pointed out, there is more mystery in a grape between the teeth than in all of our discourses that would attempt to explain it. So, may we avoid anorexia of the spirit, and let the “banquet” continue!

Fortunately a blog is a place open to dialogue, so father Michael’s posts received immediate commentary from readers, most of which were critical of his ideas.

Father Michael, you asked us to avoid ad hominem calls of hypocrisy, to turn a blind eye to the failures of the past: the atrocities of both religion and science. To imply, with some subtlety, that no modern theologian takes a literal view of the book of Genesis. However, therein lies one of the more brilliant points Dawkins makes in his book, The God Delusion. Relgious people, Dawkins notes, "pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories." To discard those parts of the Scripture that no longer align with modern moral, humanistic standards, while admirable, shows how tenuous, even flippant, religious beliefs can be. How incongruent with the search for Truth, when truths can be rewritten or discarded by the whim of a single prophet. (Posted by Dave Jarvis at 2007-09-25 18:13)

My response to father Michael would be that his posts are beautifully written and call for pondering of the immensity of human experience. However, the idea that we need to glory in the experience of not knowing must simply be a figure of speech, because it is in the nature of humans to want to know, which explains the creation of so many varied religions. Religious explanations are just one way humans have attempted to "know," science is another, and then there’s such a thing as philosophy, which may or may not adhere to religious concepts. Morality, and the need to "know" do not depend on deities to ascribe rules of behavior. Just as humans painted christ to be a white blue-eyed man, humans ascribed, and transcribed (if they came from plates, not that I believe that) rules of conduct to serve human purposes. Also humans re-write rules of human interaction every day. There is nothing mystical about the need to "know" and nothing mystical about human interraction.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS