Får Gud plats i dagens verklighetsmodeller? Om vetenskapens mordförsök på religion

En mängd bloggar, tankesmedjor och böcker har nyligen reagerat på möjligheten för religion och vetenskap att samexistera. Inte minst efter Alain de Bottons nu famösa TED Talk och efterföljande förslag om att bygga ett sekulärt tempel. I den anglosaxiska världen är det främst Templeton Foundation som arbetar för denna idé men många framstående forskare och debattörer argumenterar utifrån religiöst patos för att religion inte nödvändigtvis behöver förkrympa den vetenskapliga processen. I Sverige är detta en icke-debatt eftersom vi har så pass sekulariserade institutioner så att tro sällan kan influera beslut.

Evolutionsbiologen Jerry Coyne har i debatten myntat begreppet ”Accomodationism” för den ideologi som gärna ser möjligheter för religion att fortleva i ett annars rationellt/sekulärt samhälle. Neurologen David Eagleman har i ett smajlande häckel över nyateisten Sam Harris myntat ”possibilianism”, även detta en ny variant av den gamla agnostiska positionen. I en intervju i The New York Times uttrycker Eagleman sin djupt pragmatiska hållning till kunskap:

”Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I’m hoping to define a new position — one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story.”

Att ta ställning mot religion som ett parallellt (och möjligt) tankespår är i ett land som USA inte helt förvånande, även om det ter sig ganska radikalt här i Norden. Men med tank på att  I studien the British Council international survey on evolution  som nyligen gjordes visades att en fjärdedel (27%) av amerikaner helt förnekade möjligheten till att tro på evolution och Gud samtidigt. Vad en sådan ”faith-of-the-gaps” kan skapa för konsekvenser för vetenskapens ställning hos allmänheten bör inte underskattas men vetenskapens vara eller inte vara är inte avhängigt en individs trosuppfattning. De flesta historiska vetenskapsmän som Newton, Einstein, Copernicus, Max Planck samt flera nya som Francis Collins, Ken Miller och Martin Nowak. Detta kan man anta inte påverkade jättemycket för att hindra deras respektive framsteg inom sina discipliner, men det är naturligtvis omöjligt att mäta detta idag, man behöver en experimentell situation där en religiös dogm påtvingar ett ”research bias” som ger ett missvisande resultat. Problemet med detta, även om det gick att konstruera ett sådant experiment är att det finns oerhört många andra små tankefel som kan korrumpera forskning som inte är religiös så det verkar knappast rädda vetenskapen nämnvärt.

Men om vetenskapens metafysiska utsvävningar som ständigt lanseras och debatteras, nyligen av fysikerna Laurence Krauss och Stephen Hawking kan påverka kultur och gruppmoral mot ett mer gudlöst samhälle, kommer något radikalt att förändras i vårt välbefinnande? Som Rickard Dawkins så riktigt konstaterat så är ju alla människor på jorden extrema aeister i det att vi inte tror på 99, 99 % av alla religoner och tillhörande dogmer som någonsin extisterat. Så, kommer vår kultur förändras så mycket om vi når 100? Jag ser inga tecken på detta, varken i forskning eller i observerbar empiri. Men en som knappast håller med mig är astronomen och fysikern Victor Stenger som i sin kommande bok God and the Folly of Faith argumenterar för att det faktiskt går att plocka fram konkreta fall som historiskt visar att kristendomen har hållit tillbaka vetenskapen. Håll utkik efter denna bok, tills dess rekommenderar jag Templeton Foundations Big Questions Online-projekt och deras Essay-projekt där frågan om gud och vetenskap ställs till ledande tänkare här. Själv tror jag att nobelpristagaren Steven Weinberg hade rätt: ”Science does not make faith in God impossible, it just makes it possible to NOT believe in God.”

How Spinmeisters are Taking Over Science

We try to be critical in our daily lives, but the ownership of criticality is a constant bargaining. The NY Times reported recently that a pharmaceutical company paid to have a review article written by a consulting company, and got a well-known scientist to agree to sign on as the “author”. These ”ghost writers” produced a total of 26 scientific papers backing the use of hormone replacement therapy in women, ”suggesting that the level of hidden industry influence on medical literature is broader than previously known.”

How the s*** goes down even within science

Never in history have we seen a bigger need for media criticism and scrutiny of our public and semi-public institutions. As DN reported today, many patient organizations receive hefty sums of money from the pharmaceutical industry. Of course the moneygrabbers deny that any influence is taken place from the big companies. But a look into their political engagement proves that they are somewhat aligned with a more liberal approach to big business and the drugs industry.

From the perspective of PR, the spinmeister himself, Edward Bernays, used similar takes in the beggning of the century in order to sell Lucky Strikes and other canceroids. One writer have commented this kind of (un)scientific spin as ”the science of ballyhoo”. Lets beware of the this science. I suggest everyone starts by reading Unscientific America, about a populace that do not really belive in reality.

Science and Religion Compatible? Yes and No – Let’s Look Pragmatically

The one true debate of contemporaneity is the science-religion dispute; it hold the last block of reasoning that plagues most people that feel sliced in between the idea of religion, faith and transcendence and rational thought, science and verifiability. Astrophysicist Sean Carroll (not to be confused with Sean B Carroll, evolutionary biologist) of the Discover Magazine blog (definitely not to be confused with the Discovery Institute’s blog!) shares very interesting thoughts on the issue of closing the gap between science and religion.

This issue has been raised in abundance historically, but during the 20^th century atheist scientist came more and more into prominence and fundamentally changed the landscape for religion and a close cousin of science.  The latest attempt championed by many atheist scientists, as well as theists have labeled itself Accommodationism, in short trying to accommodate both a religious faith as well as scientific progress. Carroll does not or tries not to disprove a possible compatibility of science and religion, but he puts brackets around it. Saying:

The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look. Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility.

Carroll is interested in keeping inconsistencies out of his tradition and institution, and frankly put: religion is a waterhole of inconsistencies and questionable facts. And as for the sake of keeping intact the scientific community with its deductive methods and standards, I totally agree – religious organizations’ claims of factual events (like Jesus rising from the dead, incarnation, the existence of heaven) are by and large false. But this does not necessarily mean that the endeavor to bridge the social, psychological and institutional gap of science and religion should be rejected.

Anthropologist Scott Atran, who has studied the evolution of religion in history, irrationality and the religious base of terrorism has a fundamentally different view of this issue. In long debates at Edge.org as well as in What is your dangerous idea by John Brockman he asserts that “Religion is the hope that is missing in science”. He grounds his thinking in scientific studies of how religion can and does affect peoples lives, and the way religion in its better moment does affect science. He finds no evidence that scientists or atheists live a more moral life than theists, there are many arguments pro and contra.

Religion, he continues, is a knowledge system, which does not – as opposed to science – treat important human anxieties such as death, birth, loneliness and happiness as incidental accidents in the universe. Religion instead, treats these features as central in the universe. And here is of course the lure of religion – its system of belief mirrors the way each individual ponders his/hers place in the universe. However, I do not agree with Atran when he points to the lack of address of science to the issues of love, death and eternity. There is plenty of interesting science written about life and death, but nothing is conclusive and almost always lacks the PR-packaging that religious organizations have perfected through thousands of years (Although recent reports from around the globe clearly shows that atheists are trying their best to catch up).

I do argue in the same manner as both Carroll AND Atran, but my focus is from a pragmatist’s standpoint: I agree that the substantiation of Gods existence is not well-defined and his/hers presence is completely unnecessary to fit the data when we observe the world, and that it adds useless (but pretty) layers of complexity without any relevant increase in understanding. But I also think that science and religion are not incompatible and we can certainly imagine a religion that is directly correlated to new scientific findings and keep intact the nonaligned status of scientific thought. But whether or not the accommodationalists are on a path toward greater scientific integration in religion and whether or not the Tempelton Foundation’s enterprise to debate non-scientific issues life with the use of scientists and theologians alike is something for the future to decide.

More articles and news on the science-religion debate here, here, here, here and here

The Universe as The Ultimate Free Lunch

What makes a certified astrophysicist spread clichés like supposed neoliberal quote of the free lunch? At the Origins symposium a few weeks ago, a interesting panel was put together with Paul Davies as its chair discussing shitty things like the uniqueness of our universe and a few other small matters. One of the participants professor of physics Andrei Linde correctly purports that it is strange that the multiverse theory is coming into prominence now, when it has been around for some thirty years already. He quotes the panelist Alan Guth who talked about the creation of a universe as the ultimate free lunch. This is all part of the multiverse theory where one universe inflates another, and so on, connected to contemporary string theory.

Recall creationist William Dembski‘s book No Free Lunch – Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence. In the book Dembski claims that Michael Behe‘s notion of irreducible complexity is an indication that there is a designer involved in creation of the world.
Well, the most dangerous notion put forward by Dembski and his peers, is one he seldom admits; the search for glitches in our common scientific strata, instead of meaning and congruity. It turns every little creationist to a science critic and evolution-doubter. If God shows herself himself in the small inconsequences of science and explanations of the world, everyone will do their best in trying to never be convinced by basic or complex scientific theories. It is dangerous and spooky and should be rebutted. See the discussion from the symposium as a start.

Connectomics – This is The New S***

Ever wondered why small babies have more connections to and from their nerve cells than adults? Well, you’re not alone, this question and others pertaining to development and understanding of schizophrenia and autism and other phenomena is the study field of Connectomics, championed by Dr Jeff Lichtman, among others. He believes that a lot of answers lie in the forming and development of the brain’s connections, something he has illustrated by ‘colouring’ different cells in different hues so as to delve deepier into the secret maze of the brain. Sounds like a ball.

Lichtman would like to see a parallel Human Connectome Project alongside the Human Genome Project, and I am surely looking forward to that. Just want to remind readers of the magnitude of  this endeavor, Winfried Denk of the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg, Germany, has estimates that it would take a slave graduate student about 130 000 years to reconstruct the circuitry of just a 2 mm so called cortical column in the cerebral cortex. Wowawiwa!

Read reports in The Economist, Tech Review

Science Gurus Gather In Origins Symposium

The Origins Symposium at Arizona State University was held a few days ago inaugurating a new initiative called The Origins Initiative at ASU. The leading numero unos of the science world gathered for a dozen panels about the world and its intelligibility. From the program:

In partnership with The Science Network, this unprecedented event will bring together 70 of the world’s leading scientists and scholars, including 8 Nobel Laureates, and the world’s pre-eminent scientific public intellectuals, for three days of panels directed at exploring important outstanding research questions, and will be capped by several remarkable associate activities, including a full day of public lectures and panels at the 3000 seat Gammage Auditorium on ASU’s Tempe campus.

The only problem I have with the perspective of the The Science Network and Lawrence Krauss, who initiated this symposium, is the exclusion of social and humanist sciences. There is only one panel about the contemporary culture, and it could very well be parallelled with a panel on consumption, culture and the political Bios. And why not include a few artists and art historians while you’re at it?

Watch out for the videos, they will be posted here soon.

Book about HUO’s Science Marathon Hits The Shelves

The most tenacious curator around - Hans Ulrich Obrist – moves his marathon project he started at The Sepentine a few years ago to a collaborative model with John Brockman, a New York based literary agent and publisher of Edge.org into book form. People like biologist Ricky Dawkins, cognitive scientist Stevie Pinker and genome sequencer Craigie Venter have all been present at the ”Experiment Marathon” during 2007 and later in Reykjavik Art Museum, involving Olafur Eliasson as well. Over 100 figures from the art world and science have been involved and I will defintley try to get my hand on this one asap.

Until then watch videos from the Marathon.