I was raised Roman Catholic, but it apparently didn't take, because I've been an atheist for many years. Technically I'd call myself an "agnostic atheist" just because there's no way to prove for certain there is no god (just as there's no way to prove there *is* a god, gods, or God) but really, the "agnostic" part is just me leaving open the possibility that I'm wrong.
That being said, it follows that whenever I become embroiled in a debate/discussion/argument over some topic, my blood boils quickest when the topic involves religion. Specifically, the idea that someone else, because of their belief system, has the right to dictate what I ought or oughtn't do. I appreciate just as much as anyone else the beauty and wonder to be found in the natural world -- I just don't feel the need to thank, much less worship, some metaphysical being for my existence. And I'm really not down with the idea that even though someone else has the freedom to voluntary restrict themselves from some action (alcohol, eating seafood, riding the bus on the Sabbath, etc.) based on the whims of a "higher power", they find no problem with negating my freedom to make my own voluntary, opposing decision. It seems that because they are following the whims of a power higher than humans, they're justified in their freedom to choose whereas I am not.
Of course there are many believers who follow the same philosophy, summed up in brief as "live and let live." You do your thing, I'll do mine, and as long as we aren't infringing upon each others' rights it's all good -- with that I take no issue. But religion in politics is inescapable. Decisions about state and federal law are made all the time that are influenced by someone's personal morality. And therein lies a problem, for laws made based on subjective morality affect all of us.
For many years I've been a huge fan of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. The first book I read of his was The God Delusion. As the title suggests it spells out rather clearly how the belief in a personal god is nothing more than a willful acceptance of a figment of the imagination, of a fairy-tale, of a lie. Believers might react with indignation upon reading this book, but I eagerly devoured the entire novel, not only because Dawkins is a fantastic and persuasive author but because the book offers, through science, solace to atheists and agnostics alike.
The God Delusion first debunks many arguments (or excuses) used to justify the belief in a personal god, such as Pascal's Wager. He then goes a step further and argues that no one who considers himself rational ought to be a believer. This is as close to "science as a religion" as atheists ever get: science is (supposed to be) the ultimate exercise in objectivity and rationality, and if everything in our world can ultimately be explained by science, god's place in the life of humans is reduced to nothing more than the "creator of the big bang".
When Lewontin suggests that science is inextricable from politics, he mentions Dawkins' work in sociobiology, specifically his earlier novel The Selfish Gene. Dawkins offers in this book an answer to the question, "Why are we here?": to serve as vessels for the self-replicating, self-preserving entities that are our genes. He argues that every action we've taken and every motive we've ever had is at its root selfish: we are always trying to protect our specific genes, no matter what form the action takes.
Taking his two books together, The Selfish Gene explains what the purpose of life is from a sociobiologist's perspective (to preserve one's genes so they can ultimately be passed on to the next generation), and The God Delusion seeks to destroy the cultural phenomenon that may have succeeded in holding our society together (religion inducing obedience to authority, cohesiveness of a group, and a set of laws to be followed that would generally keep everyone in order). Lewontin's claim is upheld here: Dawkins' agenda is to get rid of the belief in god, if not religion altogether, through an irrefutable examination of biological determinism.
What does this mean for me? Truthfully, until a few weeks ago I was completely content in the theory of the "selfish gene." Biological determinism was as obvious to me as, well, evolution itself. But now that Lewontin has uncovered what could be seen as a hidden agenda underlying the acceptance of sociobiology, I'm not so sure. To postulate selfish genes as the reason for consciousness and all human actions is one thing; for an entirely new set of laws to be cooked up as a result of this theory is an entirely different issue. Science itself is not necessarily a part of these laws -- rather, it's someone's interpretation of "scientific fact" that influences which laws are made.
I can get around this issue through a claim to libertarianism, a political philosophy of the belief that no government should have anything to do with controlling the lives of its citizens: the purpose of government is to protect everyone's individual liberties. If our government was like that, we wouldn't have any laws dictating neither whether a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion, nor whether the state should be involved at all in the religious concept of "marriage", nor whether public schools should be shut down in honor of select religious holidays but not others.
But the truth of the matter is, our government is not so limited. It is involved in nearly every aspect of our lives, and the people making new laws are certain to have an agenda and be biased towards their belief system. A bias due to scientific interpretation can be as bad as a bias due to one's religion. As Lewontin says, "It is extremely important for us to distinguish what the social institutions of science, using the methods of science, say about the world of phenomena, from the actual world of phenomena itself." The idea of eugenics is at its heart a vile concept -- who's to say that someone with so-called "inferior genes" has less of a right to life than those with "superior genes"? We all got here by the same method. Regardless of our consciousness, it's not the job of any powerful entity (the state or the church) to decide who's most worthy of life, whether the judgment rest on genes or mindset.
In conclusion, the claims of science can be interpreted, accepted, or ignored whatever your faith. What you choose to believe is your business, regardless of your rationale. But when the faithful decide that my life choices make me inferior to them and their "higher power" -- when the zeal of scientists prompt some into deciding that my genetic predispositions make me inferior to someone with different characteristics in their genes -- I have a major problem. It's my duty to straighten anyone out who wants to restrict my freedom for any reason other than to protect his own, whether I'm using science to refute religious claims or arguing from individual rights to refute someone's biased interpretation of science.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jenny i absolutely loved your post, it was very detailed and hit nearly every thought i have on the topic, you kinda danced around it but do you think that at this point science has become just a religion? i mean that may be categorizing and limiting in terms but it seems to be acting as such an institution.
ReplyDeleteOn a separate topic, last semester i read a great article titled "Pre-Theoretical Assumptions in Evolutionary Explanations of Female Sexuality" by elizabeth lloyd. It basically shows how the societal concepts and religous concepts of female sexuality has infiltrated the science of evolutionary biology. Not really because of a plot to do so but simply because of the people doing the science. Her conclusion is that science is not insular and must be viewed as a part of society, otherwise when politicians rely on science it will only be to reinforce bad science and societal norms.
Great post, it would be great to speak with you more about this.
Thank you Charles! ^^ In response to your question, truthfully I have always been offended at the suggestion that these days "science" is nothing more than a religion. I just recently received my Bachelor's degree in Chemistry, and I strive to be a rational being in everything I do. That being said, I can't really take offense at Lewontin's article, because he's also a scientist, and one with far more prestige and experience than I.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue that the belief in science and the belief in religion are two different animals. Believing that one's scientific theory about the world is justified depends on an appeal to rationality; I can't find fault with the concept of the epistemological scientific method, and if someone objects, their objection could theoretically be demonstrated with a philosophical or mathematical proof.
In contrast, believing that one's religious theory about the world is justified depends on an appeal to authority. If I find fault with the idea of a Supreme Being and its divine will, a believer's response is usually "Well, it's faith, I don't have to rationalize it -- that's what faith is." There's no way to disprove the claim to knowledge of "god's will" -- as "god's will" has been filtered first through the lips of church clergymen, it could have been completely made up for all we know.
So the kind of belief in either science or religion seems to be different for each case. But what about the basic definition of what makes a religion? Dictionary.com has several definitions of the word, but the following makes the strongest case for why science = religious belief:
"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."
Scientists do follow devotedly the scientific method. But this is not unfounded worship: if anyone wishes his theory to be accepted as reality in the scientific community, he must demonstrate that he's followed the scientific method all the way from his theory's inception to its conclusion. Latour would also add that there must be an unbroken chain of "object" to "words about that object" i.e. that the meaning of that object must never be lost along the way. (Lewontin would point out the self-validation of science here, but keep in mind that something can be declared "unscientific"; the same isn't true of religious views which differ from church to church.)
As for science being a point of ethics or conscience, I don't see how either of those apply since pure science is supposed to be objective.
To strengthen this argument take a look at the first definition of religion from the same website:
ReplyDelete"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe ..."
Dawkins and the rest of the sociobiologists postulate that human life was caused ultimately by a freak accident of simple amino acids self-assembling into a molecule that was capable of replicating itself; that the nature of human life is dependent upon each individual's genetic makeup; that the purpose of human life is to perpetuate one particular line of the gene pool, one's own. In this aspect, biological determinism could be considered a religion.
But biological determinism is but one interpretation of a subsect of science; it is not a representative sample of science in and of itself. Quantum physicists and superstring theorists can postulate both the cause and the nature of the universe...
...but they cannot postulate a *purpose*. There is absolutely no scientific reason to believe that the universe has any purpose. It just is.
And I think therein lies the most telling difference between science and religion. I hope in my rambling response I have answered your question!