Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
I think part of why this either-or argument is so interesting is because the ‘separate spheres’ retort is so popular. If I’ve heard people say that once I’ve heard them say it – quite a few times. It’s always irritated me profoundly. That’s one reason I was so intensely annoyed to see Stephen Jay Gould, of all people, come out with it a few years ago. (Another reason was that he said so many absurd things in the process.) It’s always irritated me because it’s so convenient. So perfectly tailored to allow people to believe anything and everything they want to, just by locating whatever it is in the ‘separate sphere.’ Of course, people are ‘allowed’ to believe what they want to in any case, but with a convenient sphere to stash things in, they can do it without losing face intellectually, or at least they think they can, and some people let them get away with it.
But let’s stop letting them do that, shall we? Let’s hold their feet to the fire. Let’s just ask them, if it’s in some separate sphere that’s immune from any kind of inquiry (and don’t let them claim there’s another, special kind of inquiry for the Separate Sphere, because there isn’t), then how do they know anything about it? And if they don’t know anything about it, why are we supposed to believe them when they tell us where it is? If they do know anything about it – how do they know? Perhaps they’ll tell you it’s via an inner experience. Well, that experience is part of nature, obviously. So let’s inquire into it. They won’t want to let you, of course, they’ll claim it’s impossible, or that they’ve had a Revelation. But just stay calm, nibble a few pistachios for strength, and ask where the Revelation came from.
After all they have gotten away with it for a long time. It is very convenient, isn’t it. There just happens to be this Place that’s not really a place, that’s not part of nature, that’s not subject to scientific inquiry (meaning any kind of human inquiry), that’s not anything we know anything about – but even though we don’t know anything about it, by definition, because it’s in this Other Realm outside of nature – despite that, religious people know all about it and about the deity who lives there. Oh well that’s convincing. Hmph. If that’s where it is then they don’t know anything about it and can’t say anything about it, and can’t whistle about it either.
The funny thing is, the whole story about the existence of the supernatural can be considered a logical impossibility, like a square circle…The concept of existence itself is inseparable from the natural world. We have no knowledge of anything that ‘exists’ separate from the natural, so it seems to me that the argument for the “existence” of a deity is, at worst, illogical and a best, a moot point. But try to explain that to your run-of-the mill believer and she would probably look at you with a puzzled expression, hold on to her Bible/Q’ran and will probably refuse to hear such blasphemies. It’s dangerous to have people like these affecting public policy. And they’re very unlikely to be persuaded by any argument, no matter how well presented.
The most sophisticated theist, on the other hand, will probably resort to the use of fuzzy and misleading analogies and mystifying arguments to cover up the fact that they actually don’t know what they are talking about. In this group, the only ones that could be convinced are those who have some regard for intellectual honesty and feel uncomfortable around examples of congnitive dissonance. Again, prospects are sort of grim in both cases. But maybe I’m just seeing the glass as half-empty.
Ah – funny you should mention those fuzzy and misleading analogies. Ain’t it the truth. I’ve been writing some notes on that very matter for a couple of days, and will do a Comment (or two) on same either soon or shortly thereafter.
I just can’t stay quiet for long. Here’s an analogy; have at it:
Science is to religion as reproduction is to love.
Antony Flew uses the first few chapters of his 1984 book “God: a critical inquiry” to examine the contradictions inherent in the concept of an all-powerful, all-benevolent, yet punishing God. He asserts that before we can argue the existence of God, we must settle the issue of whether the concept of such an entity even makes sense. He concludes that it does not.
“Science is to religion as reproduction is to love.”
I am not sure how good an analogy the above is (analogy or comparison?). Science, love and reproduction all server useful purposes, and the world is better off for the existance of all three. With religion that is not the case.
Perhaps “Science is to religion as truth is to utter crap” is more accurate.
I have to say I think that’s a fairly terrible analogy, Marijo. You’ve been saying I don’t listen to arguments I don’t agree with – but judging by that analogy, you haven’t been listening to what I’ve been saying about science.
I don’t want to have at it in detail though. I’ll let the N&Cs do that.
Well, I certainly disagree with the analogy too, but I would like to know what’s behind the use of “reproduction” and “love”. Why would there be and analogy between religion and “love”?
Why not something like “war” and “hate”? For instance. Not that it would be a good analogy either, but in which ways is the relationship between science and religion akin to that one between reproduction and love?? “Truth” to “delusion” or “utter crap” certainly sounds more adequate….
How about “Science is to Religion as Iceland is to Tuesday”?
Statement: “Science is to religion as reproduction is to love.”
Interpretation: Reproduction, like science, is about the messy, technical details. It tells you simply what happens at the amoral, physical level. Love, like religion, encompasses all that we can smell, taste, see, hear and feel at the physical level, in addition to another, higher level of being. It’s at this level that questions of personal meaning and moral purpose find expression, and fulfillment. Like love, religion is also a subjective, non-verifiable personal experience.
Analysis of interpretation: It’s a rather arbitrary analogy, isn’t it? You can just as easily substitute “hallucination” for “love” in the analogy. Hallucinations are personal, subjective experiences, often quite meaningful. But they are still illusory. And like religion, or love, for that matter, we actually CAN objectively interrogate the claims involved. The claim that someone saw a 50-foot tall Martian in their back yard evaporates when we try to verify the Martian’s presence, and find only disconfirming evidence. A person who claims to be in love with someone, but never calls him/her, and skips out on personal plans with him/her, is probably not in love with them, whatever they may say to the contrary.
And why think science can’t have anything to do with love? It’s possible that knowledge of science can teach us how precious and fragile our planet is, and how petty our personal differences are. That was Carl Sagan’s hope anyway. I don’t think it’s quite true, but it’s at least as plausible a connection as the one between religion and love – possibly more so.
Phil
“Science is to religion as Johnson is to Berkeley”?
Phil,
I believe love can be a total physiological activity (e.g. escalation of certain hormones in our system, increased heart beat, increased activity in certain part of the brain etc). One can probably invent a machine that you hook up to a person to tell if they are in love. It is verifiable.
Religion is a faith. Faith that is unfounded in evidence.
I am with OB, Jose et al on this one. The analogy doesn’t make sense to me.
“Love, like religion, encompasses all that we can smell, taste, see, hear and feel at the physical level, …”
But the feeling can be contorted. “Love is blind” after all.
“…in addition to another, higher level of being…”
huh?? What higher level?
“…It’s at this level that questions of personal meaning and moral purpose find expression, and fulfillment…”
I am totally lost!
“…Like love, religion is also a subjective, non-verifiable personal experience.”
They both can be experiences but not necessarily higher that the empirical truth. In fact to the contrary.
AAB,
You seem to have misunderstood me. I wasn’t defending the statement “Science is to religion as reproduction is to love.” I was just explaining what I think Marijo might have been driving at with his analogy. My subsequent comments indicate that I do NOT agree with Marijo, at least as I understand him. I was explaining the ideas in order to better understand why they are wrong.
Phil
FWIW, I interpreted your comments as above. For that matter, given other posts, I would have re-read the post if at first it seemed you were in agreement with the analogy, as that would not seem consistant with your other postings.
A fine dissection of a worthless analogy I thought.
Science objectively describes facts, for example, the facts about the reproductive organs of the body and the way in which they function, or perhaps the manner in which different species evolve so as to increase their reproductive success. Religion deals with an emotional stance towards the world. Emotion, as someone said earlier, is fine for relationships, and reigion is about relationships, one’s relationship with the world as a whole, or with its creator(s), and with the other creatures which populate the world– sometimes also the dead ones, as in ancestor worship. Religion therefore involves notions such as love, awe, and wonder. The scientist may in fact feel these emotions as well, in his relationship to the world or even his work, but they do not enter into scientific description, which must leave emotional prejudices aside in favor of objective accuracy. Kierkegaard’s statement that “Truth is subjectivity” is an attempt to get at the way that religious feelings can point towards a kind of non-scientific truth, which exceeds both objective rationality and sensual enjoyment of the world.
And I’m a she, not a he.
Yes, but the trouble is, Marijo, that’s not all religion is. To say the least. If it were, as I have said many times (but I certainly don’t expect anyone to read everything I write here! still, I have said it), I would have no quarrel with it. But it’s a lot more than that. I am not talking about just feelings of love toward the world. If I were I would use a different word. I am talking about religion, and theism.
(That’s just another one of those evasive techniques defenders of religion use, I’m afraid. To define religion as just a feeling when talking to people like me. But that is not the general meaning of the word. As (again) I have pointed out a good many times.)
I wish Marijo had jumped in at “east of the border” before I got my ass handed to me for vague rhetoric and obfuscatory practices.
–
Science is exactly to religion as reproduction is to love.
Science can make a living child out of bits of DNA. In the lab. In glass dishes and tubes. Given enough budget,we could probably set up a robot-lab to do the whole thing without a human in sight.
Reproduction.
Religion necessitates a relationship, and the -ship part is essential. I and Thou. Or, me and that thing out there. Or the you at the other end of the prayer.
Gratitude, desire, pain at separation, emotional proximity and the blurred and blurring edges of identity.
Love.
–
A perfectly satisfactory analogy.
–
It seems pretty consistent here that dissenters are forced to qualify their terms, “science as practiced” “application of scientific discoveries” whereas true believers are able to say on the one hand “religion” meaning the broadest definition possible, and “religion” meaning the specific practices and dogma of institutional religions as presently configured.
But that same vagueness is present, that same “general meaning of the word” exists on both sides.
Which – deep breath and an oath to avoid rhetoric at all costs – is pretty much what I said about religion and science being hand in hand. As practiced. Now. Here. Both achieving partial comprehension of a much larger whole.
Institutions composed of actual human beings doing science, and/or doing religion. Not theoretical possibilities.
Aha! A fair point at last.
Sorry, that sounds snotty. But I’m afraid I have found the dissenting opinions so far either unconvincing or unclear. But the thing about defining religion broadly and science narrowly (though I actually think it’s the other way around, but the point about asymmetry remains) may well be true.
I say ‘may well be’ rather than ‘is’ simply because I’m not entirely convinced – because I think science in fact is a broader thing than religion. I think, in fact, science is a much larger entity and idea and way of thinking than it is generally taken to be in these debates. That’s part of what I’m saying: that defenders of religion seem to mean lab science and not much else, and I think that’s too narrow. And at the same time I think definitions of religion that pretend (for purposes of arguments like these) that it means just a feeling are too broad.
So, yes, there is an asymmetry in a way, but then that asymmetry is part of what I’m trying to say. It’s not incidental, it’s at the center of the whole thing.
But I agree that the vagueness exists on both sides. Sure. Again, that’s part of my point. But it wasn’t meant to work as ‘heads I win and tails you lose.’ I’m not sure it has…
Marijo:
Well, your explanation above is certainly clear and well-stated. And I’m sorry to have incorrectly assumed your gender in my earlier post.
You have a point, I think, and I like the Kierkegaard allusion. But still, we have the problem that religion doesn’t often think it’s about subjectivity at all. It claims to possess objective moral, and often physical truths. And the emotions you mentioned quite often serve to rigidly protect these alleged objective truths. Such as when theists use emotional appeals to coerce thinking about issues like human cloning, or genetic engineering or abortion. The emotional component of religion walks hand in hand with certain, unexamined ideas about the world.
Ironically, I think the traits of religion you find most attractive are really later developments that have less to do with religion and more to do with social, secular changes. We can think of religion more as love and emotion and all that good stuff today because we live in a secular society where religion no longer has absolute authority to enforce its truth claims. Without these kinds of checks on religion, it quite often becomes the opposite of what you described above.
See? See? Right there. Phil is describing “religion” as practiced clearly, unequivocally, right there.
And yet “science” is defended using the broadest version available.
–
This is a trial balloon okay? I’m not espousing, suggesting only.
Science as perceptual gathering, and processing; religion as response, as relationship, connecting.
The usurpation of role by both dogmatic camps has led to this bickering division.
And ultimately the only real point I ever wanted to make in all this is that partiality, pretending to entirety, has undercut the validity of both.
Hmm. I’m not so sure about this asymmetry, though. It’s true in one way but not in another. Because the general understanding of religion is an accurate one of religion as practiced, but the general understanding of science isn’t. So you’re right that the two are getting different treatment, but I think that’s not necessarily unfair, or a case of having it both ways.
I’m suggesting, not saying, that possibly your understanding of religion is a general one, so so the general understanding of religion seems accurate to you. Your understanding of science is more accurate, so the general understanding of it seems in-accurate.
That didn’t work.
The general understanding of science as practiced is …what? Labs, telescopes, gene-splicing? Naming little things no one can see?
Whereas science really is…? A method of perception? Method as perception. I’m not being rhetorical, I keep running into this. Marijo said it as “Science objectively describes facts”. So that’s a template, a way of doing things. It can’t be refined, or developed. Religion in Phil’s usage has “traits” that “developed”.
So I guess what I’m saying is I want religion to have a thing like science has. A template. Not how it is now in the general understanding. Because otherwise it seems like there’s a kind of apples and oranges mixing.
I think you’re really wanting to go up against religion as it’s practiced, applied religion as it were. And I’m right there with that.
But I’m trying to get to where I can legitmately claim that what religion really is is as capable of effectively thwarting religion-as-generally-understood as atheism is. Or pretty near anyway.
Yeah, I think I know what you mean. What religion could be, perhaps, as opposed to what it is. Or, the more useful or desirable or at least understandable aspects of religion separated off from the less useful, desirable, etc.
But I think you’d need a different word for that. I often think during these discussions that I need Religion 1, Religion 2, Religion 3 and possibly more.
That’s another whole large subject, which I want to Comment about, as briefly and tentatively and unself-importantly as I can manage.
msg:
I think I see what you’re getting at, and it’s something I’ve often wondered about myself. If I understand you correctly, you’re asking if there’s an intellectual process in religion (at least potentially) that allows it to “progress,” or challenge the dogmas of accepted religion? Is that about right?
We need to address a couple of things here before we can work toward possible answers. First, my post above doesn’t just address “religion as practiced.” That’s part of the point, but not all of it. The larger point is that religion, as commonly understood, does come with assumptions about the world. There are common intellectual frameworks underlying the official practices – such as the idea that there is a benevolent God who somehow cares about humans and intercedes on their behalf. So undergirding the practice, there are epistemological assumptions that affect the types of practices the religion follows.
The belief that this deity exists is not supported by argument or evidence in the way that scientific claims are. Thus, we often find that religion selectively interprets evidence to foster belief in this God, and tends to favor epistemologies that are dishonest compared with scientific ones. And furthermore, the temptation to tie morality in with theological beliefs, as most religions have done, means that moral assumptions of religion are going to be at least partially associated with shaky assumptions and sloppy epistemology.
I don’t think this means that religion can’t make what we would consider to be moral progress. But it seems that when it does, the progress has less to do with the nature of the religion itself than it does with the nature of forces outside that religion. Simply put, when social and cultural morals change, religious morals often change, too. Not always in the same direction, mind you – think of fundamentalists. But the intellectual ideas and assumptions of religion definitely change as the result of social changes, and theists find ways of interpreting/rationalizing these changes in light of religious tradition.
So, when I described religion changing due to social forces, I wasn’t just talking about the practices. The practices, after all, are based on ideas. And it seems to me that religion changes in predictable ways as the result of larger social changes in both ideas and in practice. And it also seems that this malleability can be both good and bad. Religion can move toward more regressive tendencies (xenophobia, racism, etc.) or progressive (liberalism, egalitarianism, etc), depending on how the beliefs of its members change.
So all of this seems to be a long way of saying that religion is good for good people, and bad for bad people. And what makes it good or bad is not anything inextricably tied to the religion, but the content of the ideas themselves.
Phil
“So all of this seems to be a long way of saying that religion is good for good people, and bad for bad people.”
Ah yes. That’s interesting, because I’ve just finished saying something similar at Twisty Sticks. Similar but not identical. That religion can motivate people to be good, but it can also motivate them to be bad, and how very difficult (read: impossible) it is to do enough counting and measuring to figure out whether the good outweighs the bad or vice versa.
Ophelia:
Yes, that’s right. I was actually thinking something along those lines and started to write it, but bailed on it at the last minute.
I was thinking of Stephen Weinberg’s update of Mary McCarthy’s quip that “religion is only good for good people.” Weinberg reworked it to say something like: “With or without religion, good people would do good things and bad people would do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things – that takes religion.” He said that in a New York Review of Books piece a few years back, I think.
I don’t completely agree, because there are lots of things that could get otherwise good people to do bad things: political extremism, for example, which can come with or without a religious ideology. And religion itself is, I think, just a cultural institution in the end, affected by all the complex factors affecting other cultural institutions.
But yes, the point remains. Religion can motivate pretty abhorent behavior in people who think they are acting for the noblest of reasons.
Phil
Oh it was McCarthy! Of course! I was trying to remember who it was and couldn’t. Of course, in Memories of a Catholic Girlhood, one of the most brilliant books of all time (she said hyperbolically).
Interesting about Weinberg, too. He has good essays on a number of subjects – the Sokal hoax for one, and the Science-Religion matter for another (in the book Science and Religion edited by Paul Kurtz. Too bad NYRB has gone subscription, or I would look for that article.