Just a Bit More
Just a little more about the religion article. Because there really is a lot of nonsense in that piece. I only talked about some of it, and I find there’s another bit I just can’t leave alone, in the last paragraph.
It is often said that science answers “how” questions while religion asks “why”, but that is simplistic. The greater point lies in their scope. Religion, properly conceived, attempts to provide an account of all there is: the most complete narrative that human beings are capable of. Science, by contrast, is – as the British zoologist Sir Peter Medawar put the matter – “the art of the soluble”. It addresses only those questions that it occurs to scientists to ask, and feel they have a chance of answering. The account it provides is wonderful. It has shown that the universe is incomparably more extraordinary, and altogether more glorious, than could ever be conceived by the unaided imagination. Yet it succeeds by narrowing its focus, as a matter of strategy. The story that science tells us, then, does not stand in contrast to that of religion (properly conceived). It is embedded within it.
The longer you look at that the more ridiculous it becomes. First of course there’s the obvious point, that religion can ‘ask why’ all it wants to, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that it can’t answer the question any more than anyone else can. It claims to answer it, of course, but as I keep saying, that’s another matter. Claiming isn’t doing; the word is not the deed and shouldn’t be taken for it. But that’s a comparatively minor point next to the really absurd last three sentences. Science is somehow inferior or subordinate to religion because it narrows its focus, it addresses only the questions scientists feel they have a chance of answering. Oh, I see – that’s a problem, is it? It’s better to do what religion does, and ask questions it doesn’t have a chance of answering? And then answer them anyway, by the simple expedient of making it up? That’s better, is it? Ask impossible questions and then make up answers instead of finding pesky old evidence? Thus coming up with the most complete [however fictional] narrative that human beings are capable of? What about those of us who don’t actually want a ‘narrative’ (which is a nice way, i.e. stealth rhetoric, of saying myth or fairy tale or story) but instead want an explanation or a hypothesis? Are we ’embedded’ in the story that religion (properly conceived) tells us too? I refuse, I refuse to be embedded.
A reader emailed me the witty suggestion that the article is a Sokallish hoax. Interesting thought. ‘Perhaps funnier though mortifying if he really meant it. I hope it is an attempt to expose how ‘religious tolerance’ allows utter drivel to not just be printed but thought.’ Indeed. Religous tolerance has a lot to answer for.
I just want to say something about this slogan that science answers “how” questions, and religion asks “why questions.” It is false on its face. Science asks and answers both how and why questions. “How do planets move?” Answer: “Planets move in elliptical orbits around the Sun.” Why do planets move in elliptical orbits arouhd the Sun? Because of gravity attraction. How does water freeze? It freezes when its temperature is lowered to 0 degrees centigrade. Why does it freeze (at that temperature?) Because of the effect that lowering temperature has on on molecular attraction.
I suppose that the reason this silly slogan has any plausibility is that those who say it have a particular sense of “why?” in mind, when it means purpose or goal, and planets and molecules have no purposes or goals. But, even when we ask why, in the sense of purpose or goal, questions about people, or group of people they are perfectly in order. Why did John say that to Mary? Because he wanted to insult her. Why do the homicide bombers commit suicide? Because they want to force their political views on others.
Why this slogan about why and how and science and religion persists is hard to explain except that nonsense has an intertia of its own.
That’s right, the reason science doesn’t answer religion’s ‘why?’ is because science maintains that there is no ‘why?’ as religion conceives it – there is no purpose, no motive, nothing but pure mechanism.
“there is no purpose, no motive, nothing but pure mechanism.”
Aye, that’s a harsh fact to live with though, isn’t it? I’m not sure that anyone really *could* genuinely live that way… we need a sense of purpose, but as there seems to be no way of truly knowing what that purpose is, the popularity of religion for providing a quick (and supposedly legitimate) answer is not exactly surprising.
Though it’s a pity that so many seem to assume that religion is the only alternative to nihilism… as with the religion-morality link (or lack thereof), the aptitude of secular philosophy for answering such questions, is largely ignored by (or perhaps even totally unknown to) your average person.
“Science asks and answers both how and why questions.”
Yes, and the other half of the equation is that (as I keep saying) religion cannot answer ‘why’ questions, it only says it can. But since the answers it gives are not true, they’re not really answers. Of course, for people who take them as answers, they do ‘work’ in some sense, so they can be considered answers of a kind. But Carl Sagan liked to say ‘I don’t want to believe, I want to understand.’ Comforting but false answers are a kind of fool’s gold.
But, yes, Richard, I take your point, but then as you say religion is not the only alternative to nihilism. Though I suppose the fact that meaning for humans has to be created by humans rather than by some external transencdent authority probably amounts to nihilism for many people…
Sure, but isn’t the view that without a trancendent God man lacks meaning or worth – isn’t the articulation of that view the nihilism?
Oh, and in response to Richard’s implying religion is not the only alternative to nihilism, how respectable an alternative is humanism on B & W? I just read a few manefestoes which are phrased as articles of faith. I baulk at that, but it doesn’t seem there any claims about the world they’re commited to (on top of merely a confidence in human reason etc) .
So based on his last paragraph, Tudge is saying that Science tries to answer all the questions which might be answerable (falsifiable), whereas religion deals with the rest (questions which are not answerable – not falsifiable) Putting on my best Popperian hat ( which does not quite fit since Sir Karl’s head was somewhat bigger than mine)then religion has no meaning. Is this really what Tudge is suggesting?
Well, it is, but of course he’s making a virtue of it, as people do when they say this kind of thing. ‘Religion tackles the big issues.’ ‘Religion asks/answers the ‘why’ questions.’ ‘Religion tells a complete narrative.’ ‘Religion has a lock on morality.’ And so on. Why? Because religion recognizes no obligation to check its anwers agains the real world. Normally, in serious inquiry, that’s a liability, but somehow when we talk about religion it becomes a virtue.
And then people like Dawkins are considered too ‘extreme’ for pointing out such idiocies. It’s all a bit wearying.