Swimming the Sacred River

It is wonderful to see articles and essays explaining the basics of science, especially in reference to religion and superstition. This one, titled “I Want to Believe: What Skepticism Reveals about Science“, is written by Michael Shermer and appears in the latest issue of Scientific American. You are encouraged to go read the whole thing.

Shermer writes:

What I want to believe based on emotions and what I should believe based on evidence does not always coincide… I conclude that I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe but because I want to know. I believe that the truth is out there. But how can we tell the difference between what we would like to be true and what is actually true? The answer is science.

Science is a method, not a set of dogmatic beliefs. As Shermer explains, “Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise. [...] The null hypothesis means that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not on the skeptics to disprove it.” Of course, as he points out above, many people choose to see evidence where none exist because they have an emotional drive to believe. Or they wedge the supernatural into scientific gaps, assuming that “if science cannot explain X, then [the supernatural] explanation for X is necessarily true.”

This is where the understanding of science gets a little murky. Shermer continues:

To be fair, not all claims are subject to laboratory experiments and statistical tests. Many historical and inferential sciences require nuanced analyses of data and a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that point to an unmistakable conclusion. Just as detectives employ the convergence of evidence technique to deduce who most likely committed a crime, scientists employ the method to determine the likeliest explanation for a particular phenomenon. Cosmologists reconstruct the history of the universe by integrating data from cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, spectroscopy, general relativity and quantum mechanics. [...] Once an inferential or historical science is well established through the accumulation of positive evidence, however, it is just as sound as a laboratory or experimental science.

This is why the Theory of Evolution is so compelling…although we cannot observe all the mechanics of evolution happening in real time, the mountain of positive, harmonized evidence over multiple domains of study allows for a high degree of confidence, especially since the theory allows for testable predictions. And yet, the null hypothesis is still out there, waiting…the moment we find a reliable fossil of a dinosaur with the remains of a homo sapiens in its belly, science will admit that it’s time to go back to the drawing board. But—and this is where many theists get lost—it is not up to science to disprove that that fossil exists, or that God exists in our knowledge gaps, or that invisible pink unicorns roam the forests. Until positive evidence is given, there is no reason, other than emotional desire, to consider them to be true.

Shermer sums it up nicely:

Which one you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you want to believe. For me, I remain in sublime awe of the great Unknown.

This Discover essay by Sean Carroll is a brief yet fantastic introduction to the basics of science and its relationship with religion. Here is one of the best definitions of science I have ever read:

Science constructs theories, and then compares them to empirically-collected data, and decides which theories provide better fits to the data. The definition of “better” is notoriously slippery in this case, but one thing is clear: if two theories make the same kinds of predictions for observable phenomena, but one is much simpler, we’re always going to prefer the simpler one. The definition of theory is also occasionally troublesome, but the humble language shouldn’t obscure the potential reach of the idea: whether we call them theories, models, hypotheses, or what have you, science passes judgment on ideas about how the world works.

He also sums up beautifully the reason so many scientists are non-theistic (see this study):

There’s no obstacle in principle to imagining that the normal progress of science could one day conclude that the invocation of a supernatural component was the best way of understanding the universe. Indeed, this scenario is basically the hope of most proponents of Intelligent Design. The point is not that this couldn’t possibly happen — it’s that it hasn’t happened in our actual world. In the real world, by far the most compelling theoretical framework consistent with the data is one in which everything that happens is perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena.

I would add that the more we do find out about the workings of the universe and the gaps in our knowledge shrink, the less likely it becomes that supernatural forces will be found to play a role. Ultimately, ideas like god, spirits, and occult forces simply aren’t very useful in helping us understand how the world actually works.

As a matter of  speculation, I posit that as science continues to naturalize the universe, many people more firmly cling to faith because of two things: anxiety and identity. (I’ll talk about the first for now, saving the latter for another post). The existence of a beneficent god and the promise of eternal life are powerful balms to existential angst. While it is easy to throw snark at beliefs in the supernatural, we would do well to recognize the very real anxiety that being alive entails. If people have been raised with faith as a way of coping with it, it is unreasonable to expect people to simply give that up.

Here is my wheelchair analogy (and please know that I have nothing but respect for our wheelchair-bound brothers and sisters): take a hypothetical group of people who were raised in wheelchairs from the day they are born. There is nothing inherently wrong with their legs, but this group believed it best to get around via wheelchair; they simply stopped questioning the practice and relied upon the Wheelchair Scripture to justify and guide them. By a certain age, the idea of not being in a wheelchair becomes a frightening thought…walking, running, and dancing seem intolerably difficult and dangerous. Eventually, their legs become atrophied and it would take a great deal of effort even to stand upright; considering the (apparent) comfort and safety of the wheelchair, learning to walk appears ludicrous and incomprehensible.

Non-theists have learned to “walk” and often look at the “Wheelchairists” with bewilderment…”Why can’t they they just get up on their feet like we do? Look, it’s great to walk and run and dance!” But looking at the world without the existence of their supernatural models is anxiety-provoking, and their innate ability to see nature alone with wonder and gratitude has been atrophied. Science is, in essence, killing their all-powerful Caretaker and taking away their eternity of bliss. While it is important to challenge those beliefs, it is equally important to have compassion for the anxiety that provokes.

In their desperation to hold on to their wheelchairs, many theists refuse to understand the nature of science. This is why pieces by Sean are so important, because they give non-theists a way of explaining science using relatively accessible language. But more than that, being able to talk about the magnificence of nature as informed by science can act as “walking lessons”, at least for those who would like to get out of the chair but can’t get past the fear of the loss of the support.

The following talk by author Jennifer Michael Hecht is highly recommended. My own comments follow below…

Jennifer Michael Hecht: The Triumph of Poetic Atheism from Ethical Culture Society Bergen on Vimeo.

Hecht brings up many wonderful points in her brief talk. A key point that is certainly relevant to Sacred River is the idea that atheism doesn’t have to be antagonistic towards the idea of religion/spirituality. No doubt many visitors here are familiar with thinkers such as Dawkins and Hitchens who are downright militant towards religion, and it is no surprise that they have become the public banners for non-theism. Although I myself agree with 90% of what they have to say, that 10% difference is rather critical, and it seems that Ms. Hecht is of like mind.

Specifically, I agree with her that there is a place for communal and personal ritual in our lives and that it is beneficial to seek out transcendent states, two things that historically fall under the provence of religion. I also agree that there is no need for gods or supernaturalism to have them. Hecht is one of those who believe that life can be fulfilling and wondrous without the need for the metaphysical, even while looking towards structures and models that we call religious.

Something that Sacred River hasn’t yet delved into is the subject of death, which Hecht rightfully suggests is a key component of religion. As she says, millions of people go to a building once a week to stare at an image of a dead guy. While Sacred River will not adopt the morbid elements of resurrection worship, it is important to address the meaning and import of death, to allow our knowledge of human mortality to make our lives richer and brighter.

We stand with those who say that non-theism can be much more than a movement of NO. Religious naturalism is one promising manifestation of that notion. While we at Sacred River explicitly reject supernaturalism of any kind, we also embrace human excellence, beauty and imperfection, the majesty of Nature, the challenges and comforts of intentional community, and our ability to transcend the everyday and see ourselves as part of the sacred web of being. The universe is so stupendously complex and amazing that—even as science offers the best way to comprehend it—it requires art, poetry, and music to even begin to capture our experience of it. And is this not one of key elements of any religion, to provide a system for transmitting an understanding of reality and what it means to be a living part of the world? At one time (and, alas, for many people still), God (and his supporting cast) was the best possible model for all we didn’t grasp; now it is time for new models that reflect the grandeur, terror, and ecstasy that is life.

Stuart Kauffman, a professor at the University of Calgary with a shared appointment between biological sciences and physics and astronomy, has a wonderful essay on emergence theology over at edge.org. In it, he outlines three essential views: theism, postmodernism, and (what I consider) religious naturalism. His argument is that emergence theory is superior to reductionistic views when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of the universe, and also provides a valid substrate upon which a modern ethical system can be developed.