♪♪
>>THIS FORUM ADDRESS WITH
CHRISTIAN SMITH WAS GIVEN
ON FEBRUARY 23, 2016.
>>GOOD MORNING.
I AM PLEASED TO WELCOME
YOU THIS MORNING FOR
TODAY'S FORUM ASSEMBLY.
MY NAME IS BRENT WEBB,
AND PRESIDENT WORTHEN
HAS ASKED ME TO
CONDUCT THIS FORUM.
WE ARE DELIGHTED TO HEAR
FROM DR. CHRISTIAN SMITH,
PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY
AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF
RELIGION AND SOCIETY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME.
DR. CHRISTIAN SMITH IS THE
WILLIAM R. KENNAN JUNIOR
PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY
AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF
RELIGION AND SOCIETY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME.
HE IS THE PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATOR OF THE NATIONAL
STUDY OF YOUTH AND RELIGION,
THE SCIENCE OF
GENEROSITY INITIATIVE,
AND THE PARENTING AND THE
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION
OF RELIGIOUS FAITH PROJECT.
DR. SMITH RECEIVED A BA IN
SOCIOLOGY FROM GORDON COLLEGE,
AND AN MA AND PHD IN SOCIOLOGY
FROM HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
DURING HIS DOCTORAL PROGRAM
HE SPENT A YEAR STUDYING
CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY
AT HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL.
DR. SMITH PREVIOUSLY HELD
FACULTY APPOINTMENTS
AT GORDON COLLEGE AND
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL.
HE IS THE AUTHOR, CO-AUTHOR,
OR EDITOR OF NUMEROUS
SCHOLARLY ARTICLES,
BOOK CHAPTERS,
RESEARCH REPORTS, AND BOOKS-
SOME OF WHICH ARE
USED IN CLASSES AT BYU.
DR. SMITH'S SCHOLARLY INTERESTS
FOCUS ON AMERICAN RELIGION,
CULTURAL SOCIOLOGY,
ADOLESCENTS, GENEROSITY,
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY,
AND PHILOSOPHY
OF SOCIAL SCIENCE.
HE HAS RECEIVED MANY AWARDS
FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION
TO THE STUDY OF THE
SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION.
HIS 2005 BOOK "SOUL SEARCHING:
"THE RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL
LIVES OF AMERICAN TEENAGERS,"
CO-AUTHORED WITH
MELINDA LUNDQUIST DENTON,
WON CHRISTIANITY TODAY'S 2005
DISTINGUISHED BOOK AWARD.
HE WAS AWARDED THE LILLY FELLOWS
PROGRAM DISTINGUISHED BOOK AWARD
IN 2011 FOR HIS BOOK,
CO-AUTHORED WITH
PATRICIA SNELL,
"SOULS IN TRANSITION:
"THE RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL
LIVES OF EMERGING ADULTS."
IN 2012 THE AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
SECTION ON ALTRUISM, MORALITY,
AND SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
AWARDED DR. SMITH THE
DISTINGUISHED CAREER AWARD.
THAT SAME YEAR,
HE WAS HONORED WITH THE
REV. EDMUND P. JOYCE, C.S.C.
AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN
UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME.
HE IS A FACULTY FELLOW OF THE
KROC INSTITUTE FOR PEACE STUDIES
AND THE HELLEN KELLOGG INSTITUTE
FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES.
WOULD YOU PLEASE JOIN ME
IN GIVING A WARM WELCOME
TO DR. CHRISTIAN SMITH.
[APPLAUSE]
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD MORNING.
FIRST, I BRING YOU GREETINGS
FROM MICHAEL WOOD,
ONE OF MY VERY BRIGHT AND
PROMISING SOCIOLOGY PHD
GRADUATE STUDENTS AT NOTRE DAME,
WHO GRADUATED BYU WITH A BS
IN SOCIOLOGY IN 2012 AND AN
MS IN SOCIOLOGY IN 2014.
PLEASE KEEP SENDING US MORE
GREAT STUDENTS LIKE HIM.
SECOND, THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR INVITING ME
TO GIVE THIS LECTURE.
I AM HONORED TO BE HERE,
AND I HOPE THAT MY THOUGHTS
THIS MORNING PROVE TO BE
STIMULATING AND USEFUL.
SO, I WANT TODAY TO ADDRESS
A SPECIFIC CONCERN RELATED
TO THE VERY BIG TOPIC OF
THE PROPER RELATION OF
SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
THIS IS A HUGELY
IMPORTANT ISSUE,
ONE THAT HAS GENERATED
A LOT OF CONTROVERSY.
THE TOPIC OF SCIENCE AND
RELIGION IS IMPORTANT
BECAUSE SCIENCE AND
RELIGION ARE BOTH WEIGHTY
MATTERS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT,
BECAUSE SCIENCE AND RELIGION
SOMETIMES ADDRESS QUESTIONS
AND MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT THE
SAME SUBJECT MATTERS,
AND BECAUSE HOW WE THINK ABOUT
HOW SCIENCE AND RELIGION OUGHT
TO PROPERLY RELATE TO ONE
ANOTHER HAS BIG CONSEQUENCES FOR
HOW WE THINK ABOUT LIFE AND HOW
WE ORGANIZE IMPORTANT SOCIAL
INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS SCHOOLS.
FURTHERMORE, THERE IS A
LOT OF MISGUIDED AND SLOPPY
THINKING ABOUT SCIENCE AND
RELIGION GOING ON THESE DAYS,
INCLUDING AMONG SOME
OTHERWISE VERY SMART PEOPLE,
AND CRITIQUING THAT CAN
HELP TO SHARPEN OUR OWN
CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS.
SO I AM A SOCIOLOGIST,
BUT I'M ALSO INTERESTED IN
CERTAIN PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS,
SO MY ADDRESSING THE QUESTION
OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION HERE
TODAY IS GOING TO ENGAGE
SOME PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES,
BUT IN A WAY THAT WILL BE FRAMED
BY A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE.
I'M GOING TO SAY THE ARGUMENTS
ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION
NOT ONLY CONCERN CLEAR AND
UNCLEAR THINKING ABOUT IDEAS,
WHICH PHILOSOPHY ENCOURAGES
US TO CONSIDER,
BUT ALSO THE QUESTION
OF THE CONTROL OF TURF.
BY TURF, I MEAN SOMETHING LIKE
THE AREAS OF NEIGHBORHOODS
THAT GANGS RULE,
EXCEPT THAT WITH
SCIENCE AND RELIGION,
THE TURF IN QUESTION IS
NOT CONTROLLED WITH
THREATS AND VIOLENCE,
AS GANGS DO,
BUT WITH INSTITUTIONALIZED
BELIEFS ABOUT AUTHORITY
AND LEGITIMACY THAT ARE
STRUGGLED FOR AND CAREFULLY
PROTECTED BY DIFFERENT GROUPS
OF PEOPLE WITH DIVERGENT-
SOMETIMES DIVERGENT INTERESTS.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUESTION
IS WHO HAS THE RIGHT,
THE COMPETENCE,
THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY
TO MAKE CLAIMS THAT STICK,
CLAIMS THAT OTHERS SHOULD
RECOGNIZE AS VALID?
THIS IS A SOCIOLOGICAL ISSUE
BECAUSE IT CONCERNS THE CULTURAL
CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS-MAKING
AUTHORITY BY DIFFERENT
AND SOMETIMES RIVAL SOCIAL
GROUPS AND INSTITUTIONS.
I WILL COMPLICATE THIS TURF
METAPHOR IN A BIT BELOW,
BUT IT'S A GOOD PLACE TO START.
SO HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO
FOCUS ON THIS MORNING.
I HAVE OBSERVED THAT CERTAIN
WELL-KNOWN SCIENCE AUTHORS,
OFTEN WRITING FOR
POPULAR AUDIENCES,
SEEM TO FEEL ENTITLED TO
WRITE WITH AUTHORITY,
NOT ONLY ABOUT SCIENCE,
BUT ALSO TO PRONOUNCE ON
METAPHYSICS AND RELIGION,
AND I THINK THAT'S
OFTEN A PROBLEM.
HERE'S WHAT I MEAN.
I READ A LOT OF BOOKS
ABOUT SCIENCE.
I REALLY BELIEVE IN THE
IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE,
AND I WANT TO LEARN FROM
SCIENCE ALL THAT I CAN.
WHAT I HAVE NOTICED IN READING
SOME SCIENCE BOOKS IS THAT
THEIR AUTHORS ABRUPTLY SLIP
FROM MAKING SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS
BASED ON SCIENTIFIC METHODS
AND EVIDENCE TO SUDDENLY
ASSERTING METAPHYSICAL
AND THEOLOGICAL CLAIMS,
SEEMINGLY BASED ON
SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY,
BUT WHICH, IN FACT,
HAVE NO PROPER SCIENTIFIC MERIT.
INVARIABLY, SUCH CLAIMS
CONTRADICT AND DISMISS RELIGION.
THEY ARE CLEARLY MADE TO
UNDERCUT RELIGIOUS CLAIMS'
AUTHORITY AND PLAUSIBILITY.
HERE IS ONE EXAMPLE.
LAST MONTH,
I WAS READING THE GLOBALLY
BEST-SELLING BOOK ENTITLED,
"SAPIENS:
A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMANKIND,"
PUBLISHED IN 2015 BY THE
OXFORD-EDUCATED ISRAELI
SCHOLAR YUVAL NOAH HARARI.
IN IT, HARARI PULLS TOGETHER
MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE TO TELL US ABOUT THE
LONG STORY OF HUMAN BIOLOGICAL
AND CULTURAL EVOLUTION.
SO I WAS ENJOYING THIS
BOOK WHEN ON PAGE 28,
I SUDDENLY FOUND MYSELF
READING THESE WORDS:
"THERE ARE NO GODS IN THE
"UNIVERSE OUTSIDE OF THE COMMON
"IMAGINATION OF HUMAN BEINGS.
"NO THINGS LIKE GODS EXIST
"OUTSIDE OF THE STORIES
"THAT PEOPLE INVENT AND
"TELL ONE ANOTHER.
RELIGIOUS MYTHS"
ARE "IMAGINED,"
"FICTIONS" PRODUCED FROM
"COLLECTIVE IMAGINATION,"
NOT "OBJECTIVE REALITY."
SO I FOUND THESE CLAIMS TO BE
REALLY JARRING AS A READER.
I HAD JUST BEEN READING ABOUT
THE HUMAN COGNITIVE REVOLUTION,
WHICH GOOD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
DEMONSTRATES OCCURRED MANY
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.
NEXT THING I KNOW,
AND WITHOUT WARNING,
I'M READING THEOLOGICAL
METAPHYSICS.
"THERE ARE NO GODS
IN THE UNIVERSE."
REALLY?
HOW, I WONDERED,
COULD, OR DOES,
HARARI POSSIBLY KNOW
THESE THINGS?
FROM ARTIFACTS DUG UP IN AN
ARCHEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION?
"OH, LOOK.
"THERE REALLY ARE NO
GODS IN THE UNIVERSE."
[LAUGHTER]
FROM FOSSILS EXCAVATED IN
NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMS?
I THINK NOT.
SAID PLAINLY,
HARARI IS HERE ENGAGING IN A
DECEPTIVE SLEIGHT OF HAND,
AN UNACKNOWLEDGED
SMUGGLING OF THEOLOGICAL
METAPHYSICS IN THROUGH
THE BACK DOOR OF SCIENCE,
SEEMINGLY WITH THE
AUTHORITY OF SCIENCE.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT HARARI
WOULD, ON PRINCIPLE,
DEFY RELIGION SETTING TWO
TOES ONTO SCIENCE'S TURF,
BUT HE OBVIOUSLY FEELS ENTITLED
TO WANDER ONTO RELIGION'S TURF
TO POUR A TANK OF GASOLINE
ON IT AND SET IT ON FIRE.
WORSE, HARARI DOES NOT
EVEN SEEM TO BE AWARE
OF HIS OWN INTELLECTUAL
CATEGORY-SHIFTING HERE.
I WILL PROVIDE OTHER EXAMPLES
LIKE THIS IN A MOMENT,
BUT FIRST,
I WANT TO MAKE A
CRUCIAL DISTINCTION-
THAT IS,
BETWEEN ON THE ONE HAND,
A SCIENTIST PUBLICLY OFFERING
A PERSONAL CONFESSION OF HIS
OR HER BEST EVALUATION OF ALL
OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND
CONCLUDING THAT THEY CANNOT,
AS AN INDIVIDUAL,
BELIEVE CERTAIN
RELIGIOUS CLAIMS,
AND TWO, ON THE OTHER HAND,
A SCIENTIST PUBLICLY SUGGESTING
OR CLAIMING WITH SCIENTIFIC
AUTHORITY THAT WHAT SCIENCE
HAS LEARNED ITSELF SHOWS THAT
RELIGIOUS CLAIMS ARE FALSE,
OR ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE.
THE FIRST POSITION
IS LEGITIMATE.
EVERY SCIENTIST HAS THE
RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR HIS-
OR HERSELF WHETHER THEY
CAN OR CANNOT BELIEVE IN
CERTAIN RELIGIOUS CLAIMS,
AND THE FINDINGS OF SCIENCE
MAY PLAY AN APPROPRIATE ROLE
IN THAT DISCERNMENT, I BELIEVE.
FURTHERMORE, SCIENTISTS,
LIKE EVERYONE ELSE,
HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL OTHERS
ABOUT THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS.
IT'S THE SECOND POSITION,
BY CONTRAST,
THAT I TAKE ISSUE WITH.
SCIENTISTS AS PUBLIC
INTELLECTUALS HAVE NO LEGITIMATE
INTELLECTUAL GROUNDS FOR
MAKING MANY OF THE DISMISSIVE
METAPHYSICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
CLAIMS THAT THEY MAKE,
SUPPOSEDLY ON THE BASIS OF THE
FINDINGS OF SCIENCE ITSELF.
SO JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU DO
NOT THINK I AM CHERRY-PICKING
AN ANOMALOUS PASSAGE
FROM AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE,
LET ME OFFER OTHER EXAMPLES
OF SCIENTISTS INTERLOPING IN
THIS WAY ONTO THE TURF OF
METAPHYSICS AND THEOLOGY.
BIOLOGIST EDWARD O. WILSON
CLAIMS IN A BOOK
PUBLISHED LAST YEAR THAT:
"THE EVIDENCE IS MASSIVE
"ENOUGH AND CLEAR ENOUGH
"TO TELL US THIS MUCH:
"WE WERE CREATED NOT BY
"A SUPERNATURAL INTELLIGENCE
"BUT BY CHANCE AND NECESSITY.
"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A
"DEMONSTRABLE DESTINY OR
"PURPOSE ASSIGNED TO US,
"NO SECOND LIFE VOUCHSAFED US
"FOR THE END OF THE PRESENT ONE.
WE ARE COMPLETELY ALONE."
REALLY?
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
TELLS US THAT?
THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII
PARTICLE PHYSICIST
VICTOR STENGER SIMILARLY WRITES,
"EMPIRICAL DATA AND THE THEORIES
"THAT SUCCESSFULLY DESCRIBE
"THOSE DATA INDICATE THAT THE
"UNIVERSE DID NOT COME ABOUT
"AS A PURPOSEFUL CREATION.
"BASED ON OUR BEST CURRENT
"SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE,
"WE CONCLUDE BEYOND A
"REASONABLE DOUBT THAT A GOD
"WHO IS THE HIGHLY INTELLIGENT
"AND POWERFUL SUPERNATURAL
"CREATOR OF THE PHYSICAL
UNIVERSE DOES NOT EXIST."
HM.
PALEOANTHROPOLOGIST
RICHARD LEAKEY AND SCIENCE
WRITER ROGER LEWIN CLAIM THAT,
"THE IMPORTANT MESSAGE THAT
"COMES TO US FROM THE FOSSIL
RECORD" IS THAT ANY ALLEGED
"GOD SURELY HAD NO
"PLANS FOR HOMO SAPIENS,
"AND COULD NOT EVEN HAVE
"PREDICTED THAT SUCH A
SPECIES WOULD EVER ARISE."
THAT'S A VERY
STRANGE LAST CLAIM,
BUT THIS IS WHAT THEY WRITE.
[LAUGHTER]
I GUESS IF YOU'RE GOD,
YOU DON'T-
WELL, WHATEVER.
[CLEARS THROAT]
[LAUGHTER]
FOR A FINAL EXAMPLE SUFFICIENT
FOR PRESENT PURPOSES,
MARCELO GLEISER,
THE BRAZILIAN PHYSICIST AND
ASTRONOMER ON FACULTY AT
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE WRITES,
"THERE IS NO FINAL
"TRUTH TO BE DISCOVERED,
NO GRAND PLAN BEHIND CREATION."
REALLY?
SCIENCE CAN TELL US THAT?
I DON'T THINK IT CAN.
THE "META-" PREFIX OF
METAPHYSICS MAKES A HUGE
DIFFERENCE IN DISTINGUISHING
IT FROM MERE PHYSICS.
SO DOES THE "THEO-" PREFIX
IN "THEOLOGY" MAKE IT
A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT
DISCIPLINE OF INQUIRY THAN
OTHER "-OLOGIES" LIKE
BIOLOGY OR COSMOLOGY.
YET SCIENTISTS REGULARLY
VENTURE SUCH CLAIMS ANYWAY.
CONSIDER THIS MORE RECENT
STATEMENT BY THE PHYSICIST,
STEVEN WEINBERG, IN HIS BOOK
"THE FIRST THREE MINUTES."
"IT IS ALMOST IRRESISTIBLE-"
BUT HE MEANS,
ALTHOUGH IT'S FALSE-
"FOR HUMANS TO BELIEVE
"THAT WE HAVE SOME SPECIAL
RELATION TO THE UNIVERSE-"
THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD
LIKE TO BELIEVE-
"THAT HUMAN LIFE IS NOT JUST
"A MORE-OR-LESS FARCICAL
"OUTCOME OF A CHAIN OF
"ACCIDENTS REACHING BACK
"TO THE FIRST THREE MINUTES,
"BUT THAT WE WERE SOMEHOW
"BUILT IN FROM THE BEGINNING.
"IT IS VERY HARD TO REALIZE
"THAT THIS IS ALL JUST A TINY
"PART OF AN OVERWHELMINGLY
"HOSTILE UNIVERSE.
"THE MORE THE UNIVERSE
"SEEMS COMPREHENSIBLE
"THROUGH SCIENCE,
"THE MORE IT ALSO
SEEMS POINTLESS."
WEINBERG, HERE,
IS TRYING TO DRIVE
US FROM A PHYSICAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE BIG BANG,
ABOUT WHICH HE HAS
REAL EXPERTISE,
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
UNIVERSE IS, IN FACT, POINTLESS,
WHICH HIS EXPERTISE DOES
NOT AUTHORIZE HIM TO MAKE.
WHAT ENTITLES HIM TO
MOVE FROM SCIENCE TO
METAPHYSICS SO EFFORTLESSLY?
IT'S UNCLEAR,
AND MY SIMPLE POINT
HERE IS THAT IT IS, IN FACT,
ILLEGITIMATE INTELLECTUALLY.
THE METAPHYSICS DOES NOT
RATIONALLY FOLLOW FROM THE
SCIENCE AND NEVER COULD.
SO ON WHAT GROUNDS DO SUCH
SCIENTISTS SEEM TO THINK THEY
ARE ENTITLED TO PRONOUNCE
LIKE THIS ON METAPHYSICS AND
THEOLOGY WHEN THEY ARE NOT
PHILOSOPHERS OR THEOLOGIANS?
SOME, I SUSPECT,
DO NOT EVEN REALIZE
WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THEY APPEAR SIMPLY TO BE
OBLIVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT
EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND
DISCURSIVE BOUNDARIES,
AND SO DO NOT REALIZE THAT
THEY HAVE WANDERED ONTO
SOMEBODY ELSE'S TURF.
THE SIMPLE WORD FOR THAT,
I'M AFRAID,
IS IGNORANCE.
OTHERS, IT SEEMS,
INSTEAD SIMPLY APPEAR TO BELIEVE
THAT BECAUSE THEY SPEAK WITH
THE AUTHORITY OF SCIENCE,
THEN THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO
PRONOUNCE AUTHORITATIVELY
ON ANY TOPIC THAT THEY PLEASE.
THE SIMPLE WORD FOR
THAT IS ARROGANCE.
IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING
THAT NEITHER IGNORANCE NOR
ARROGANCE BEFITS GOOD SCIENCE,
OR THOSE WHO REPRESENT
SCIENCE TO THE PUBLIC.
HOWEVER, WHAT I OBSERVE
IN SUCH SCIENCE WRITING IS
NOT SIMPLY THE RESULT OF
IGNORANCE AND ARROGANCE,
BUT INSTEAD ALSO OFTEN
FOLLOWS FROM A PARTICULAR
EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTION-
EPISTEMOLOGY HAVING TO DO
WITH WHAT HUMANS CAN KNOW-
EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTION
THAT IS POWERFUL,
BUT RARELY EXPLICITLY STATED.
THIS ASSUMPTION IS FALLACIOUS
AND SOUNDS LIKE THIS:
"IF SCIENCE CANNOT OBSERVE
"OR DISCOVER SOMETHING,
THEN IT CANNOT BE REAL OR TRUE."
STATED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY,
"THE ONLY THINGS THAT
"COULD BE REAL OR TRUE ARE
"THOSE THAT SCIENCE CAN
OBSERVE AND VALIDATE."
SO THIS IS WHAT WE CALL VULGAR
IMPERIALISTIC SCIENTISM-
NOT SCIENCE,
BUT THE IDEOLOGY OF SCIENTISM-
AND RUNNING AT EVEN DEEPER
LEVELS DRIVING IMPERIALISTIC
SCIENTISM ARE THE PRE-SCIENTIFIC
PRESUPPOSITIONS OF NATURALISM,
MATERIALISM, AND EMPIRICISM.
THAT'S A LOT OF "-ISMS."
I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THE
TIME TO UNPACK THEM,
BUT JUST TRUST ME-
THERE'S A LOT RUNNING HERE.
WITH ALL OF THESE
ASSUMPTIONS AT WORK,
SCIENCE IS TURNED,
BY THIS IDEOLOGY,
FROM LEGITIMATELY BEING,
ONE: ONE FANTASTIC WAY
TO KNOW MANY THINGS ABOUT
OURSELVES AND THE WORLD-
INSTEAD INTO BEING,
TWO: AN IMPERIALISTIC,
EXCLUSIVIST, TOTALIZING SOURCE
OF ANY AND ALL LEGITIMATE
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EVERYTHING.
ALL COMERS MUST ENTER BY THE
NARROW GATE OF THE SCIENTIFIC
METHOD IF THEY HOPE TO
BE WELCOMED INTO THE
KINGDOM OF KNOWLEDGE.
THIS VERY SCIENTISM IS
CLEARLY REFLECTED IN THE
PASSAGES BY WILSON,
STENGER, LEAKEY, AND LEWIN,
QUOTED ABOVE,
WHICH TRY TO MAKE
"EMPIRICAL DATA" AND
"MASSIVE AND CLEAR EVIDENCE"
AND "THE FOSSIL RECORD" THE SOLE
ADJUDICATOR OF GOD'S EXISTENCE
AND A PURPOSE FOR THE UNIVERSE.
TO SPELL THIS OUT A BIT FURTHER,
LET'S RETURN TO
STEVEN WEINBERG'S CLAIM ABOUT
THE UNIVERSE BEING POINTLESS
TO SEE HOW THIS WORKS.
WEINBERG HAS REPEATED HIS VIEW
ABOUT THE POINTLESSNESS OF
THE UNIVERSE IN MANY PLACES.
IN ONE OF THEM,
HE TELLINGLY STATES THAT,
"THERE IS NO POINT IN THE
"UNIVERSE THAT WE DISCOVER
"BY THE METHODS OF SCIENCE.
"WE ARE FACED WITH THIS
"UNLOVING, IMPERSONAL UNIVERSE,
"AND WE MAKE IN IT ANY WARMTH
AND LOVE FOR OURSELVES."
NOW, I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH
WEINBERG'S FIRST STATEMENT
THAT THERE IS NO POINT IN THE
UNIVERSE THAT WE DISCOVER BY
THE METHODS OF SCIENCE.
OF COURSE PHYSICS
CANNOT DISCOVER A
POINT TO THE UNIVERSE!
ANY MORE THAN MY KITCHEN
THERMOMETER COULD TELL ME WHAT
EMOTIONS YOU'RE FEELING INSIDE.
[LAUGHTER]
WEINBERG'S STATEMENT ABOUT
WHAT SCIENCE CANNOT
DISCOVER IS OBVIOUS,
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT WEINBERG
CONCLUDES THAT BECAUSE
SCIENCE CANNOT DISCOVER IT,
THERE ACTUALLY, IN FACT,
IS NO POINT TO THE UNIVERSE.
BUT THAT'S SILLY!
SIMPLY BECAUSE PHYSICS CANNOT
DISCOVER THE UNIVERSE'S
POSSIBLE POINT DOES NOT
MEAN THERE IS NOT ONE.
ALL THAT WEINBERG'S CONCLUSION
REALLY TELLS US IS THAT HE COMES
TO HIS ARGUMENT OPERATING WITH
THE WORKING PRESUPPOSITION OF
IMPERIALISTIC SCIENTISM-
THAT IS, THAT IF SCIENCE CANNOT
OBSERVE OR DISCOVER SOMETHING,
IT CANNOT BE REAL OR TRUE.
BUT IF WE REJECT THAT
PRESUPPOSITION,
AS WE SHOULD,
THEN SUDDENLY THE UNIVERSE
MIGHT ACTUALLY BE FOUND,
BY OTHER MEANS, TO HAVE A POINT,
A MEANING, A SIGNIFICANCE.
NOW, THE BEMUSING IRONY
OF ALL OF THIS IS THAT THE
EPISTEMOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITION
THAT SUPPOSEDLY AUTHORIZES ONLY
SCIENCE TO TELL US WHAT IS REAL
AND TRUE AND WHICH PRODUCES SUCH
DRAMATIC CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE
UNIVERSE'S POINTLESSNESS IS NOT,
ITSELF, A SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT,
AND NEVER, EVER, ITSELF COULD BE
VALIDATED BY EMPIRICAL SCIENCE.
IT IS, INSTEAD,
A POINT OF PHILOSOPHICAL
PRESUPPOSITION,
SOMETHING NOT ACTUALLY
UNLIKE A FAITH COMMITMENT.
THE LOGIC OF IMPERIALISTIC
SCIENTISM, THEN,
TURNS OUT TO BE INTERNALLY
SELF-DEFEATING.
IT DEPENDS-
THIS IS A LITTLE TRICKY,
BUT FOLLOW THIS.
IT DEPENDS ON A NON-SCIENTIFIC
POSITION TO TAKE THE POSITION
THAT ONLY SCIENCE AUTHORIZES US
TO TAKE POSITIONS WORTH TAKING.
AND THAT'S LIKE ME CALLING
YOU ON THE TELEPHONE TO
TELL YOU THAT I CAN'T CALL
YOU TO TALK BECAUSE MY
TELEPHONE IS NOT WORKING.
[LAUGHTER]
THE VERY CLAIM ITSELF SHOWS THAT
THE CLAIM ACTUALLY CANNOT BE
CORRECT IN A FORMOLOGICAL SENSE.
A SECOND IRONY HERE IS
THAT IN THE NAME OF HARD-NOSED
INTELLECTUAL RIGOR,
MANY SUCH PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL
SCIENTISTS SHOW THEMSELVES TO
BE DEEPLY CONFUSED ABOUT THE
BASIC NATURE OF THE RELIGIOUS
IDEAS THEY ARE DISMISSING.
FOR INSTANCE,
THE GOD OF THE ABRAHAMIC
TRADITIONS OF JUDAISM,
CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM IS BY
NATURE RADICALLY TRANSCENDENT,
OF AN ABSOLUTELY AND
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ORDER
OF BEING THAN CREATION.
AND SO OF COURSE IT'S NOT
SUBJECT TO HUMAN EMPIRICAL
OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION.
AND BY THE WAY,
I DO REALIZE THAT
MORMON DOCTRINE,
RELATIVE TO JEWISH,
CHRISTIAN, AND ISLAMIC,
WOULD TAKE A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT
APPROACH TO JUST HOW RADICALLY
TRANSCENDENT DIVINITY IS.
BUT I'M NOT GOING
TO GET INTO THAT.
I'M COMPARING THESE
SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS TO
THE JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY,
AND ISLAM'S VIEW THAT GOD
IS RADICALLY TRANSCENDENT.
SO AN EVEN HALF-EDUCATED
BELIEVER IN THESE TRADITIONS
KNOWS THAT GOD CANNOT BE
SUBJECT TO HUMAN EMPIRICAL
OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION.
SO WHAT SUCH SCIENTISTS ARE
ESSENTIALLY SAYING TO THOSE
RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IS THIS:
"I'M GOING TO IGNORE YOUR
"RELIGION'S ACTUAL CLAIMS,
"WHICH I AM SURE ARE DUMB,
"AND INSTEAD SUBSTITUTE MY
"OWN CARICATURE OF THEM,
"AND THEN I'M GOING TO DISMISS
"MY ILL-INFORMED CARICATURE
"AS FAILING TO PASS THE TEST
"OF MY SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS,
"AND THEN CONCLUDE THAT YOUR
RELIGION IS UNBELIEVABLE."
THIS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE AS
A MODEL OF INTELLECTUAL RIGOR?
NOW, TO BE VERY CLEAR,
I AM NOT SAYING THAT NO
RELIGIOUS CLAIMS COULD BE
DISPROVED BY SCIENCE.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL
RELIGIOUS CLAIMS ARE
SOMEHOW PROTECTED FROM
SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY SIMPLY BY
VIRTUE OF BEING RELIGIOUS.
NO, IN FACT,
MANY RELIGIOUS CLAIMS THAT
CONCERN WORKINGS IN THIS
OBSERVABLE WORLD ARE
POTENTIALLY LIABLE TO
SCIENTIFIC INVALIDATION-
THAT IS, IF AND WHEN
SCIENCE HAS THE TOOLS AND
EVIDENCE TO EVALUATE THEM.
IF, FOR EXAMPLE,
A FAITH HEALER CLAIMED TO HAVE
CURED SOMEONE'S CANCER,
BUT MEDICAL TESTS SHOWED
THE CANCER REMAINING,
THE FAITH HEALER'S CLAIM
WOULD BE INVALIDATED.
IF SCIENCE COULD FIGURE OUT A
WAY TO SEND RESEARCHERS BACK
THROUGH A TIME MACHINE TO
OBSERVE THE FIRST FEW DAYS
AFTER JESUS'S CRUCIFIXION
AND RECORDED ON VIDEO TAPE
THE DISCIPLES STEALING JESUS'S
DEAD BODY FROM THE TOMB
AND THEN CLAIMING THAT
JESUS ROSE FROM THE
DEAD BY THE POWER OF GOD,
THAT WOULD PUT AN END TO ALL
BUT THE MOST DEMYTHOLOGIZED,
LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY.
OR IF HISTORIANS WITH NEW
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WERE SOMEHOW
ABLE TO SHOW BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT THE CLAIMS OF
JOSEPH SMITH ABOUT THE
REVELATION OF THE GOLDEN
PLATES IN THE WOODS OF
UPSTATE NEW YORK WERE A HOKE-
A HOAX, EXCUSE ME,
THAT WOULD SINK MORMONISM.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT A HOKE IS,
BUT I KNOW WHAT A HOAX IS.
THAT WOULD SINK MORMONISM.
USUALLY, THE PASSAGE OF TIME
AND THE LACK OF EVIDENCE AND
TIME MACHINES MAKE SUCH
SCIENTIFIC INVALIDATIONS OF
RELIGIOUS CLAIMS IMPOSSIBLE,
FOR BETTER OR WORSE,
EVEN IF IN PRINCIPLE
THEY ARE POSSIBLE,
BUT MY MAIN POINT HERE
IS A CONCEPTUAL ONE;
THAT IS, SOME RELIGIOUS CLAIMS
ABOUT REALITY ARE, IN PRINCIPLE,
SUBJECT TO SCIENTIFIC
EVALUATION.
AND SOME, IN FACT-
THOSE INHERENTLY BEYOND
SCIENTISTS' CAPACITY TO
OBSERVE AND ANALYZE-
SIMPLY ARE NOT.
NOW, BACK TO SOCIOLOGY.
THE FACT THAT THE KIND OF
SCIENCE WRITERS I HAVE QUOTED
BLITHELY INTERLOPE INTO
METAPHYSICS AND THEOLOGY
WITHOUT COMPUNCTION-
AND SOMETIMES IT SEEMS EVEN
WITHOUT AWARENESS THAT THEY
ARE MAKING SUCH MOVES,
AND THAT THEY USUALLY
GET AWAY WITH IT-
REFLECTS NOT ONLY
IGNORANCE AND ARROGANCE
AND SCIENTISTIC IDEOLOGY,
BUT ALSO THE INSTITUTIONAL FACT
THAT SCIENCE HAS ACCUMULATED
IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE MASSIVE
CULTURAL AUTHORITY,
STATUS, AND PRESTIGE,
MUCH MORE THAN
RELIGION POSSESSES.
AND HOWEVER MUCH MODERN PEOPLE,
INCLUDING SCIENTISTS,
WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT
WE OPERATE PURELY RATIONALLY,
WE KNOW THAT CULTURAL STATUS
COGNITIVELY BIASES PEOPLE'S
TENDENCY TO OFFER AND
ACCEPT BELIEFS GENERALLY,
EVEN ERRONEOUS BELIEFS.
STATED DIFFERENTLY,
SCIENCE IS A DOMINANT
INSTITUTION WHEN IT COMES
TO KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS,
AND ONE OF THE PRIVILEGES
OF DOMINANCE IS NOT HAVING
TO LEARN AND THINK AS HARD AS
ONE SHOULD WHEN IT COMES
TO MAKING CLAIMS BEYOND
ONE'S CORE COMPETENCE.
PERIPHERAL VOICES,
BY COMPARISON,
HAVE GOT TO THINK VERY
HARD ABOUT THEIR CLAIMS IF
THEY HOPE NOT TO BE SECTARIAN,
BUT INSTEAD TO HAVE THEIR
IDEAS TAKEN SERIOUSLY
BY THE MAINSTREAM.
BUT WHEN ONE IS ALREADY,
BY VIRTUE OF ONE'S
GREAT INSTITUTIONAL
STATUS AND AUTHORITY,
TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY,
ONE CAN AFFORD TO GET A
BIT INTELLECTUALLY SLOPPY
WITH ONE'S CLAIMS AND
STILL GET AWAY WITH IT.
THIS IS A SOCIOLOGICAL
OBSERVATION.
ONCE ALL OF THESE
INSTITUTIONAL FORCES GET
MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION,
THE KIND OF PUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE I
HAVE QUOTED CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF AND REINFORCE THE FOLLOWING
KIND OF DOUBLE STANDARD:
ON THE ONE HAND,
FOR RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS,
RELIGION IS A PERSONAL
MATTER THAT MUST,
AS SUBJECTIVE OPINION,
BE KEPT CLOSETED
IN PRIVATE LIFE,
AND CERTAINLY NOT BE
ALLOWED TO SAY ANYTHING
ABOUT SCIENCE OR EDUCATION.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
FOR SCIENTISTS,
RELIGION IS A PUBLIC MATTER
SUBJECT TO REDUCTIONISTIC
DISMISSALS ON THE AUTHORITY OF
SUPPOSEDLY OBJECTIVE SCIENCE.
IN OTHER WORDS,
VIEWED AS TURF STRUGGLES
BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION,
THE SCIENCE GANG HAS GAINED
NEARLY COMPLETE CONTROL
OF THE RELIGION TURF.
MEMBERS OF THE RELIGION GANG
MAY STAY IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD,
AS LONG AS THEY KEEP
OFF THE STREETS.
THEN AGAIN, FOR REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE MORE AGGRESSIVE
NEW ATHEIST PERSUASION
LIKE RICHARD DAWKINS,
THE RELIGION GANG
ITSELF NEEDS SIMPLY TO
SURRENDER AND DISAPPEAR.
BUT TO BE CLEAR,
WE ACTUALLY NEED TO OBSERVE
THAT THE SITUATION HERE IS
MORE COMPLICATED THAN SCIENCE
AND RELIGION SIMPLY NEEDING
TO RESPECT EACH OTHER'S TURF.
THAT'S ACTUALLY A PROBLEMATIC
METAPHOR BECAUSE THE METAPHOR OF
TURF AND GANGS IMPLIES EQUAL
KINDS OF RIVALS FIGHTING WITH
THE SAME SORTS OF WEAPONS
OVER THE CONTROL OF TERRITORY.
IN FACT, THAT IS EXACTLY HOW
THE MISGUIDED RELIGION
WRITERS I QUOTED ABOVE
SEEM TO VIEW REALITY,
WHICH ENABLES THEM TO THINK THAT
SCIENCE CAN SIMPLY VANQUISH
RELIGION AS A COMPETITOR.
HOWEVER, MY MOST IMPORTANT
POINT HERE IS THAT SCIENCE
AND RELIGION, OR METAPHYSICS,
ARE ACTUALLY NOT EQUAL KINDS OF
RIVALS STRUGGLING WITH THE SAME
MEANS OVER IDENTICAL TURF.
INSTEAD, THEY OPERATE
ON DIFFERENT AXES OF
THOUGHTS ACCORDING TO
DISTINCTIVE EPISTEMOLOGICAL
SOURCES AND STANDARDS.
SO WHAT IS MOST FUNDAMENTALLY
WRONG ABOUT THE SCIENCE
WRITERS WHO I QUOTE ABOVE,
IN OTHER WORDS,
IS NOT THAT THEY DISRESPECT
RIVAL GANGS' TURF,
BUT THAT THEY MAKE A BASIC
CATEGORY ERROR IN THINKING IN
THE FIRST PLACE THAT THEY CAN
EVEN JUDGE SUCH RELIGIOUS
CLAIMS WITH SCIENTIFIC TOOLS.
NOW, TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR,
I AM NOT SAYING THAT SCIENCE
"OWNS THE FACTS"
AND RELIGION IS STUCK WITH
SOMETHING LIKE ONLY
"A CRAZY LEAP OF FAITH."
I'M NOT SAYING THAT.
THAT SIMPLE DICHOTOMY
IS FALSE, TOO.
SCIENCE ITSELF IS GROUNDED
ON A SET OF PRESUPPOSITIONS
THAT ARE ULTIMATELY TAKEN ON
FAITH OR NOT ABOUT REALITY,
AND AS MICHAEL POLANYI
HAS SHOWN,
SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY IS
ACTUALLY DRIVEN NOT BY STRICT
ADHERENCE TO SOME METHOD,
BUT BY DEEP, PERSONAL,
PRE-SCIENTIFIC COMMITMENTS
TO HUMAN VALUES LIKE WONDER,
BEAUTY, AND TRUTH.
IN OTHER WORDS,
BOTH SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE
IMPLICATED IN PERSONAL BELIEF
COMMITMENTS OF VARIOUS KINDS,
AND TO THE EVALUATION OF THE
TRUTH OF THOSE BELIEFS THROUGH
THE FACTS OF LIVED EXPERIENCE.
THESE PROCESSES
ARE NOT IDENTICAL,
BUT NEITHER ARE THEY
ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT.
HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENCE
THAT DOES MATTER HERE
IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS:
SCIENCE SEEKS TO UNDERSTAND
THE NATURAL WORKINGS OF
MATTER, ENERGY, LIFE, THE MIND,
AND SOCIETY THAT CAN BE
THEORETICALLY UNDERSTOOD
THROUGH DIRECT AND INDIRECT
EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION,
WHEREAS RELIGION-
MOST RELIGIONS SEEK TO
UNDERSTAND AND ENGAGE REALITIES
THAT EITHER TRANSCEND CREATION,
EVEN IF THEY INTERACT
WITH CREATION-
SUCH AS A PERSONAL GOD,
AS IN THE ABRAHAMIC FAITHS-
OR REALITIES THAT THE
IMMANENT MATERIAL WORLD
ACTUALLY OBSCURES-
SUCH AS THE FORCE OF BRAHMAN,
AS WITH HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM.
IN EITHER CASE,
EVEN THE MOST POWERFUL
OF SCIENCE'S TOOLS
ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY
INCOMPETENT TO PENETRATE
AND EVALUATE THE LATTER.
THESE MAY BE HUMANLY KNOWN,
BUT IF SO,
IT MUST BE THROUGH MEANS OTHER
THAN SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT,
SUCH AS DIVINE REVELATION
OR ENLIGHTENMENT,
OPERATING WITH
REASON AND EXPERIENCE.
ONE LAST THOUGHT ABOUT
EXPLAINING SCIENTISTS SMUGGLING
METAPHYSICAL THEOLOGY
IN THEIR SCIENCE WRITINGS:
I THINK THAT WHEN
WE GET DOWN TO IT,
A GOOD PART OF WHAT MOTIVATES
MANY OF THESE SCIENTISTS
TO REJECT GOD, RELIGION,
AND OTHER NON-NATURALISTIC
METAPHYSICAL VIEWS
ARE NOT ACTUALLY THE
FINDINGS OF SCIENCE,
BUT INSTEAD,
PERSONAL, MORAL,
AND EMOTIONAL OBJECTIONS.
NOW, I DO NOT WISH TO
PSYCHOANALYZE ATHEISTS,
BUT YEARS OF DISCUSSION AND
OBSERVATION HAVE SUGGESTED
TO ME THAT IN MANY CASES,
IF ONE SCRATCHES JUST
BELOW THE SURFACE OF
MANY ALLEGEDLY SCIENTIFIC
OBJECTIONS TO RELIGION,
ONE FINDS NOT REAL
SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS,
BUT INSTEAD,
VERY OFTEN,
PERSONAL, MORAL,
AND EMOTIONAL CONCERNS.
THESE MAY BE UNDERSTANDABLE,
THEY MAY BE VALID,
AND THEY MAY BE COMPELLING,
BUT LET US BE CLEAR THAT
THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE.
SOME SCIENCE WRITERS ARE MORE
TRANSPARENT THAN OTHERS.
CONSIDER, FOR EXAMPLE,
STEVEN WEINBERG AGAIN,
WHO IN A 2003
INTERVIEW SAID THIS:
"MAYBE AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF IT,
"I REALLY DON'T LIKE GOD.
"YOU KNOW, IT'S SILLY TO SAY
"I DON'T LIKE GOD BECAUSE
"I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD,
"BUT IN THE SAME SENSE THAT I
"DON'T LIKE IAGO OR ANY OF THE
"OTHER VILLAINS OF LITERATURE,
"THE GOD OF TRADITIONAL
"JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY
"AND ISLAM SEEMS TO ME
"A TERRIBLE CHARACTER.
"HE'S A GOD WHO IS OBSESSED
"WITH THE DEGREE TO WHICH
"PEOPLE WORSHIP HIM AND
"ANXIOUS TO PUNISH WITH
"THE MOST AWFUL TORMENTS
"THOSE WHO DON'T WORSHIP
"HIM IN THE RIGHT WAY.
"THE TRADITIONAL GOD IS
"A TERRIBLE CHARACTER.
I DON'T LIKE HIM."
OKAY.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.
MY POINT IS THAT
THAT'S NOT SCIENCE.
OR TAKE EDWARD O. WILSON'S
MORAL OBJECTION TO RELIGION,
THAT "FAITH IS THE ONE
"THING THAT MAKES OTHERWISE
"GOOD PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS.
"THE GREAT RELIGIONS ARE
"TRAGICALLY SOURCES OF CEASELESS
"AND UNNECESSARY SUFFERING.
"THEY ARE IMPEDIMENTS
"TO THE GRASP OF REALITY
"NEEDED TO SOLVE MOST SOCIAL
PROBLEMS IN THE REAL WORLD."
OKAY, THAT'S A GROTESQUE
OVERSTATEMENT OF SOMETHING
THAT HAS A KERNEL OF TRUTH,
BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT SCIENCE.
WE CAN UNDERSTAND THESE
PERSONAL, MORAL, AND EMOTIONAL
OBJECTIONS TO RELIGION,
EVEN IF THEY'RE
GROSSLY OVERSTATED,
BUT LET US BE SURE THEY'RE
NOT GOOD SCIENCE AND OUGHT
NOT TO CARRY THE WEIGHT
OF SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY,
EVEN IF THOSE WHO PERSONALLY
FEEL THEM ARE SCIENTISTS
PROFESSIONALLY.
OKAY, COMING TO AN END.
BEFORE I FINISH,
LET ME CLARIFY TWO POINTS.
FIRST, NOTHING I HAVE SAID HERE
POSITIVELY VALIDATES THE TRUTH
CLAIMS OF ANY RELIGION.
I AM NOT MAKING ANY APOLOGY
FOR THE TRUTH OF RELIGION.
THAT'S NOT MY POINT.
THAT'S NOT MY PURPOSE HERE.
SECOND, IT MUST ALSO BE SAID
THAT NOT ALL POPULAR SCIENCE
WRITERS PLAY AT AMATEUR
METAPHYSICS AND ATHEOLOGY.
SOME WRITERS WHO ARE CLEARLY
ANTI-RELIGIOUS ARE ALSO MORE
APPROPRIATELY CAREFUL IN THE
WAY THEY STATE THEIR CRITIQUES.
NOW, SUCH MORE CAREFUL WRITERS
MAY ACTUALLY BE SOCIOLOGICALLY
MORE DANGEROUS TO RELIGION,
BUT INTELLECTUALLY,
WE SHOULD RESPECT THEIR
MORE APPROPRIATE PRECISION
IN PRESENTING THEIR VIEWS.
OKAY.
HERE, THEN, IS MY BOTTOM LINE.
TO ALL AMATEUR SCIENTIFIC
INTERLOPERS INTO METAPHYSICS
AND THEOLOGY, I SAY THIS:
PLEASE STICK TO WHAT YOU'RE
GOOD AT, TO SCIENCE PROPER,
AND STOP DOING HALF-BAKED
PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
WITHOUT EVEN BEING CLEAR
THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
I'M NOT TELLING THIS TO YOU.
I'M TELLING IT TO THEM.
EVEN THOUGH I'M LOOKING AT YOU.
AT THE VERY LEAST,
LEARN ENOUGH TO BE ABLE
TO DISTINGUISH IN THE FIRST
PLACE BETWEEN PROPERLY
SCIENTIFIC, PHILOSOPHICAL,
AND THEOLOGICAL CLAIMS.
THEN, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO
MAKE PUBLIC CLAIMS ABOUT
METAPHYSICS AND THEOLOGY,
FIRST LEARN ENOUGH ABOUT THE
PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION YOU'RE
ENGAGING TO SPEAK ACCURATELY
AND INTELLIGENTLY ABOUT IT SO
AS NOT TO EMBARRASS YOURSELF.
AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT,
PLEASE THINK HARDER ABOUT YOUR
PRESUPPOSITIONS OF NATURALISM,
MATERIALISM, AND EMPIRICISM
THAT DRIVE YOU INTO NARROW,
IMPERIALISTIC SCIENTISM.
HOPEFULLY, WHEN YOU DO,
YOU WILL REALIZE THAT
SCIENCE QUA SCIENCE IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY INCAPABLE
OF DISPROVING THE POSSIBLE
REALITY OF WHAT IS MOST
IMPORTANT IN MOST RELIGIONS,
WHETHER THAT BE
THE GOD OF ABRAHAM,
SAINT PAUL, MOHAMMED,
ZOROASTER, OR JOSEPH SMITH,
OR KARMA, SAMSARA,
REINCARNATION, AND NIRVANA.
IN THE END, LET'S HAVE GOOD,
RIGOROUS ARGUMENTS ABOUT
SCIENCE AND RELIGION,
BUT LET'S HAVE ONES
THAT ARE WELL-INFORMED,
FRUITFULLY CONSTRUCTIVE
WHERE POSSIBLE,
AND FAIR AND HONEST WHEN THEY
MUST BE CRITICALLY DESTRUCTIVE.
THANK YOU.
[APPLAUSE]
♪♪
>>THIS FORUM ADDRESS WITH
CHRISTIAN SMITH WAS GIVEN
ON FEBRUARY 23, 2016.
