Tapping into scientific spirituality
As the debate between science and religion rages on, I am simultaneously inspired and dejected at the ramifications of it and how it affects those on the sidelines. I am optimistic regarding how much publicity atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are getting in the mainstream media, and that many ridiculous religious claims are being examined out in the open. Unfortunately, despite the exposure of atheistic ideas to the theistic world, many of the same misrepresentations of atheists remain.
I believe the logical arguments proposed by secular thinkers against belief in gods or religion actually resonate with a large portion of people, however, the prospect of a world without religion is also frightening for many.
Despite the fact that religion can be associated with rampant violence, hypocrisy, immorality, and unscientific thinking, it is also associated by many with good deeds, a sense of community, order in a chaotic world, and a feeling of awe towards the natural world that surrounds us. This is where a breakdown in dialogue occurs. After all, if religion encompasses these good attributes, then don’t those without religion lack them in fundamental ways? Even without religion, what about a soul or life after death? Will crime increase? Who or what will protect us from our most basic natures? These are answers that, on the surface, religion seems to answer.
This is exemplified in a recent written debate between Sam Harris and Dennis Prager. Dennis asks the same questions that atheists have been answering for years. However, while logical arguments against god might indeed be irrefutable, it is an ultimately negative exercise, lacking in the positive replacement for religious thought and feelings that many feel a need for. It removes belief in a god or religion, but puts nothing in its place.
Dennis says, “Is it really reason and common sense that lead atheists to their certitude that everything, all existence, came about by sheer chance?” This is ultimately an argument against a straw-man atheist who doesn’t really exist, and certainly who Sam Harris is not, but a question that gets a great deal of respect among the religious, and which deserves a thoughtful response by the non-believer.
No, we do not believe that everything in existence came about by sheer chance. If the universe was made up of pure chance then science could not exist. Science looks for the patterns and forces in nature which are products of an ordered and logical universe, which allow it to be understood. This question exemplifies that largest stumbling block towards an understanding of atheism by the people on the streets. God represents order, if you take away order, then you’re left with chaos. No, the universe contains order no matter what our opinions of the origin of that order might be. Taking away one explanation for order does not mean that you are left with nothing. Other explanations do exist.
Concrete explanations for the world around us is what drives both religious belief and scientific discovery. But where these two approaches differ is in methodology. Science is cautious and doubtful, always prepared to change its mind upon the accumulation of new evidence. Religion is absolute in its belief and unwavering in the face of doubt. This steadfastness is possibly religion’s greatest appeal, and an area where the scientific world-view needs the greatest exposition. The appeal of science lies in its recognition of the faulty nature of human beings. The awareness that we are not omnipotent and that we can be wrong. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that science is always going to be more accurate than religion because it is a self-correcting process. Furthermore, this means that science can, at some length, accurately describe reality, while religion, because it relies on the honesty of potentially dishonest, inaccurate human minds, will ultimately describe a fictional universe; though it may have some passing resemblance to our own.
As is the case with most unbelievers, I was once a believer myself, though never a fundamentalist. So, it would be good for others in the cause of secularism to remember how many potential allies lie in wait, ready to be mobilized if only they could be reached out to in some way. This is, unfortunately, one of the biggest shortcomings in the current debates. I can certainly understand pointing out the silliness of religious beliefs, or the holes in illogical arguments attempting to prove the existence of god, but that’s the easy part. The hard part is appealing to the sense of spirituality that nearly everyone on this planet shares. I’m not talking about mysticism or the after-life, I’m talking about the feeling you get when staring up into a starry sky contemplating the origins of the universe, or what it really means to be created from star stuff.
Carl Sagan is one of those people who was very well spoken when dealing with issues of spirituality and how they relate to science. I think what we really need is an infusion of spirituality (I apologize for those who might cringe at the word, I cannot think of a better one) into our discussions of science. Science can provide a fuller, more awe-inspiring perspective on order, life, the universe and our place in it than I have ever found in religion. Religious dogmas constrain the mind and limit understanding. Their god must be a small god, limited to the support of a small group of people amid a single race among a vast number of species, on a single planet, surrounding a single star among billions of other stars and galaxies that exist all around us. It is only through the unconstrained pursuit of knowledge that we can make progress into understanding the vast unknown which surrounds us in the universe.
Carl Sagan describes this divergence of religion in science succinctly:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
—Carl Sagan
If we can tap into that “reverence and awe” and bring that to the fore of the debates in the culture war between science and religion, we might be able to make real progress in the abolition of superstition and dogmatic thought that impedes human progress.
