Science, Religion and Climate Change: The Dangerous Corruption of American Education

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/science-religion-and-clim_b_3697247.html


Sanjay SanghoeeBanker, political and business commentator; author of 'Killing Wall Street'

Posted: 08/06/2013 3:08 pm

Let me start by saying that I am a liberal and that I believe in God. I believe that there is an all-encompassing force that is responsible for creating the universe and that plays a subtle, but powerful, role in our lives and destinies.

But I also have no trouble believing that this same omniscient force created the universe through the incredibly complex and beautiful process of evolution. In other words, God created the scientific processes and physical laws that govern our existence, and it is those that gradually gave birth to everything else, and there is absolutely no contradiction between those two things.

Yet this simple and elegant possibility cannot be accepted by the religious movement in this country, mainly because it goes against dogma and words written thousands of years ago, which by themselves were almost certainly meant to be parables and not dogma at all.

In Kentucky, for example, there is a battle raging right now between religious groups and those who support Next Generation Science Standards -- an initiative to create more uniform curricula across the nation and to enhance the quality of education for children. The religious groups object to the new standards because they treat evolution as fact and discuss climate change. Earlier this year, Barbara Cargill, the chair of the State Board of Education in Texas, argued in front of the Senate Committee on Education for toning down the teaching of evolution and conveying the other side of the debate.

more at link

[on point]

1. As an atheist I appreciate your POV as sensible given new ino / understandings

[cbayer]

2. I didn't write it, but I also appreciate the POV of the author.

[PotatoChip]

3. Rec'd for exposure.

Btw, has anyone seen this? Documentary trailer (below).

After having watched the whole thing recently, all I can say is Thank God my daughter is already out of the school system, and well 'launched'. But what if she eventually has children who have no choice but to be taught with these so-called "educational" textbooks?

All of us need to fight this BS. Atheists, Agnostics and Believers alike.

[cbayer]

4. I did see that and agree that it was excellent.

There is some significant pushback in some school districts, and I wholeheartedly agree that believers and non-believers alike need to fight this together.

[struggle4progress]

5. The notion, that there is some "debate" between evolution and religious belief, is due in part

to a general failure of our society to teach science well

It seems to be a difficult notion, for many people, that "science" represents an effort to understand the natural world PURELY in terms of natural phenomena: that is, one considers ONLY natural phenomena and then tries to EXPLAIN or PREDICT observations of SPECIFIC phenomena as precisely as one can, and (if possible) CONSISTENT with one's existing "knowledge" but with a willingness to propose modifications of existing "knowledge" when necessary

One real advantage, of this effort to provide natural accounts of natural phenomena, is that it can occur in cross-cultural collaborations: an Atheist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, and a Muslim (for example) might work together to understand a phenomenon that they all agree occurs, using explanations that do not depend on their religious views

It is rather too bad IMO that we have ceased to call this large enterprise "natural philosophy" -- the old term that indicated the "natural" and "philosophical" aspects of the enterprise. Pragmatists, of course, may regard the enterprise favorably, due to its constant improvement of our ability to make increasingly more precise predictions of outcomes under specified conditions, which leads to an increasing technical ability to manipulate our world. But mere admiration, of the technical advantages it gives us, may also sometimes lead people to forget the provisional and evolving character of what is known and to regard "science" in a dogmatic fashion as "absolute truth" -- which misrepresents the enterprise: Paul Erdos used to say he was two and a half billion years old, having been born when the earth was only a billion years old and having lived until the earth was three and a half billion years old

Teaching science as dogma reinforces fundamentalist misconceptions, such as the notion that the actual aim of education about evolution is merely to propagandize students to adopt one side in some dogmatic conflict. The only way to avoid loud pointless dogmatic debates is to sidestep them completely, which is often difficult to do -- and even more difficult in settings where the local culture or power structure expects dogmatic education. To argue against one dogma, by reciting one's own contrary beliefs in dogmatic fashion, does not counter dogmatism but merely reinforces

The real educational challenge is not to make students "believe" science but to teach students a bit about HOW to think scientifically, so that they understand what is actually involved

[cbayer]

6. Teaching kids to think scientifically really is the bottom line, I agree.

Particularly with all the garbage on the internet. People do not have the tools to evaluate "studies" or reports that purport to give data, but the data is bogus.

This is particularly a problem for physicians, because patients bring in articles frequently that they assume are valid, and they are not.

[trotsky]

7. The author does not actually accept science.

There is zero evidence that "God created the scientific processes and physical laws that govern our existence." There is zero evidence that this same god "created the universe through the incredibly complex and beautiful process of evolution." Neither of those is a scientific concept.

I also question the author's understanding of evolution - we would not be here but for the violent, horrible deaths of billions of organisms. Evolution is a brutal, heartless process. Untold millions of infants have died because they didn't possess the genes necessary to survive their environment. That "beautiful process" is something a benevolent creator would foist upon us? Really?

The ultimate irony is that the author is actually defending a form of the creationist position, just minus the literal creation of species event.

[struggle4progress]

8. You misunderstand the nature of science: there is no ideological test anyone must pass

to be regarded as a good scientist

The test of a scientist, judged as a scientist, is that person's ability to produce accurate data about natural phenomena, informative explanations of and predictions abouyt natural phenomena (based on natural processes), or both

Like anyone else, a scientist might have any number of strange ideas: he/she might believe the world is a figment of his/her imagination, or might believe that aliens were planning to conquer earth, or might believe that all his best ideas were communicated to him/her by some goddess who appears to him/her from time to time to discuss good future directions of research. The person's scientific work is to be judged on its own merits as scientific work, without regard to such extraneous considerations. Nothing obvious prevents someone, who (say) believes in telekinesis, from doing good work in physics, if the person has the logical skills, concentration, and drive to understand the current state of knowledge regarding a physics problem and to make progress on that problem in an intelligent and productive way. Newton had many ideas that seem odd to many of us, but that does not affect his standing as a great mathematician and great physicist

A very good scientist is likely to have ideas that are somehow strange, not only because such a person might "think outside the box" on many issues -- but also because no one can single-mindedly apply attention to one highly specific problem without at the same time neglecting to think other matters through in the same detail -- and perhaps also because a person might need to tolerate some of his/her own eccentricities in order to have additional psychic energy for research

Nothing could be more poisonous to science than your desire to enforce ideological purity of scientists, according to your standards

[trotsky]

9. You misunderstand more than that.

The ideas that a god created the universe, and that life arose on earth due to divine intervention, are non-scientific ones. They cannot be tested, they have no predictive value, and they are unsupported by any evidence.

Nothing wrong with having strange or unproven ideas, but until you have some objective support for them, they're just strange or unproven ideas.

Despite your attempts to smear me, I'm not trying "to enforce ideological purity of scientists," I am merely pointing out facts. But please, continue to make it personal if that's what you feel you need to do.

[struggle4progress]

10. You claimed upthread that a person didn't "accept science," simply because that person

held theological views that you dislike

All manner of competent scientists hold various non-scientific views, that they do not allow to interfere with their science

Francisco Ayala, for example, earned his PhD at Columbia under Theodosius Dobzhansky, who himself collaborated for many years with Nobelist Thomas Hunt Morgan, in whose laboratory the first genetic maps were produced in 1913, long before anyone understood the actual chemical mechanics of heredity

You can view Ayala's recent papers here: http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2134

Now a tenured professor at UC Irvine, Ayala has been President of the AAAS, is a member of the NAS, and was awarded the National Medal of Science

Ayala is also a Templeton Prize winner: he originally trained for the priesthood and became interested in evolutionary theory through the writings of another priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

[trotsky]

11. The author is specifically addressing the topic of evolution, yet...

does not accept the complete science of evolution. Their god is introduced as an explanation, which is not scientific, is not supported by the evidence, etc.

Is Evolution Compatible With Religion?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/evolution-and-religion_b_1945083.html

This has nothing to do with theological views I "dislike," it has to do with theological views that are unscientific (which would be all of them).

Parading a Templeton winner isn't going to bolster your point, BTW.

[struggle4progress]

12. Former AAAS President, member of NAS, National Science Medalist: you don't read carefully enough

Or mebbe you just don't know the science world: NAS membership is by election only, and about 10% of the members are Nobel laureates

Go ahead: turn up your nose to sniff at Ayala's credentials

[trotsky]

13. You again totally miss the point.

Let me know when you actually want to discuss the points made. 'Til then!

[eomer]

14. God as an explanation for any phenomenon in nature is abandonment of science.

Fully embracing science would always look to a scientific explanation for everything we can observe. Looking to God to explain the beginning of the universe is just as much an abandonment of science as if we said that gravity is a force that flows from God rather than from some natural cause.

[cbayer]

15. I don't agree with that.

I don't want to look for a scientific reason for why some music moves me, why I love my children the way I do, why when I eat certain foods I feel a sense of ecstasy.

I don't want to look for a scientific reason for the rapture I feel driving into Yosemite or when I see the David statue.

It's not abandoning science to not always look for a scientific explanation for everything we observe. Some things defy explanation and it would be an extremely dull world to have an explanation for everything.

I love science, but it's not the end all and be all of all human experience.

Whether one explains these things using the god concept is very much dependent on how the individual sees the world.

It's not better to do it your way, it's just different.

[eomer]

17. There are people applying science to those same questions that you'd rather not know the answer to.

It's your prerogative to wish for a supernatural or mystical answer for those things and even for gravity and electricity. But it still amounts to being unscientific on those questions. There likely is a scientific answer for why I like different music than you do.

[cbayer]

20. It's not about wishing for a mystical answer, it's

about acknowledging that there are certain aspects of being human that don't lend themselves to scientific inquiry.

I am aware that some choose to study these things. For the most part, their science is very soft and vague and their findings very inconsistent.

Just look at studies that attempt to delineate how believers and non-believers might be different different.

I doubt there will ever be hard science to back up why I like some music and you like another. I doubt that there would be any reason to explore such science, though someone may try.

Again, I love science, but not everything in life requires or would benefit from scientific inquiry.

And I do believe that some questions are possibly unanswerable.

[eomer]

21. What's difficult or even unimaginable to study today may become more feasible in the future.

The core premise of science is that it is desirable to find a scientific explanation for anything that can be observed in nature. Human emotions (in response to music or from other causes) are clearly something that science would want to explain. Our current best efforts may be soft but I don't see any inherent reason that it would be impossible for a breakthrough that would bring bright, hard conclusions.

It's an interesting question to me for a couple of reasons. One is that a personal quirk of mine is that I am easily and strongly moved by music. It's a problem at times as I find I have to fight back or hide tearing up, even tears coming down, at a performance where no one else is responding that way. On the other hand, being moved by music is one of my most favorite things so I wouldn't want a lobotomy to cure it. So learning why I'm so strongly moved by music would be interesting to me.

Another reason is that I'm easily moved to awe and feeling of mysticism and I don't need for the material to be real. In other words, a movie like Avatar will invoke feelings that sound similar to those others describe about religion. It's interesting that a completely artificial artifact like a movie can invoke those feelings.

Have to run now but I think I have more thoughts on this when I have a few moments...

Cheers!

[cbayer]

23. I agree that much of what is not known now may be known

through scientific study in the future.

But I don't agree that science is the end-all and be-all of human existence. While it may be desirable to seek scientific answer for what we observe, I would not take the hard position that it is possible to get answers for everything.

I have similar responses as you to certain kinds of music, art, literature. I was in tears in Istanbul the first time I heard the call to prayers ring out from 6 surrounding mosques in Istanbul. I couldn't explain it. Perhaps I could understand it through a course of psychoanalysis, but why would I do that?

Do we want to become Spocks - all reason and no emotion?

So I embrace those that embrace the spiritual, as long as they do not impose their beliefs on others.

Have a great day. It's been a pleasure talking with you.

[eomer]

24. Regarding Istanbul...

My son and his girlfriend have a trip to Istanbul planned for September. Was there a particular spot where you experienced that? Sounds like it might be a tip I'd like to pass along to them.

[cbayer]

25. If at all possible, they should stay in the old part of town.

I stayed at a wonderful little hotel called Amira. It was off season and relatively inexpensive. There are lots of small hotels in that area with views of the blue mosque, lots of great places to eat and easy access to many of the major sites and public transportation.

The spice market, a Bosphorus boat ride and the underground cisterns are other things I highly recommend.

Istanbul is way at the top of the most wonderful places I have ever visited.

If possible, they should learn a few key phrases and carry a phrase book or translator app. German is fairly widely spoken, but not english (outside of the major tourist sites).

I hope they love it as much as I did.

[eomer]

27. Thanks so much, will pass along the tips.

His girlfriend is a native speaker of German and he's getting pretty fluent so that will be helpful.

Thanks!

[cbayer]

28. The people were wonderful and really tried to help when I had questions,

but there were very significant language barriers for me. Didn't detract from the experience, though.

And the food!

You have made me want to return there.

[trotsky]

18. You don't have to agree, but it's the truth.

Of course it's a straw man to say that evil scientists are going to eliminate the love of music, or of one's children, but I suspect you know that and are only trying to shame/silence yet another viewpoint you don't like.

Those are highly subjective experiences and while there may very well be scientific reasons you feel the way you do about them, the focus of this topic was evolution and why people you've previously called "dumbasses" reject it. I merely pointed out that the author of the piece ALSO rejects a fully naturalistic explanation of the evolution of life.

Keep attacking those straw men, cbayer. Those horrible logical emotionless scientist atheists will surely be defeated by your pronouncements.

[cleanhippie]

22. "I don't want to look for a scientific reason for why..."

And there is the root of the problem.

[struggle4progress]

16. You're imposing ideological requirements. It is, of course, true that religious or supernatural idea

cannot play any role in a scientific discussion

But neither interest in science, nor appreciation of science, nor the ability to carry out a scientific discussion, nor the ability to do scientific work, precludes a person from having ideas other than scientific ideas or precludes a person from having philosophical interests in such questions as "What implications does scientific work have for our thinking outside the scientific sphere?"

That fact that someone might have religious or supernatural natural ideas (say), and might mix such ideas with scientific thoughts, in non-scientific conversations, does not in any sense show that the person is a unscientific person. There are many important non-scientific conversations in which scientific ideas might be mixed with non-scientific ideas. In discussing the question, for example, of whether it would be moral or immoral for us to drench someone with gasoline and then toss a lit match at them, there is a certain role for scientific thinking in parsing out the consequences of such an act, and an understanding of these consequences is important to the moral discussion, but conclusions regarding the morality of the act depend on other considerations, which cannot be established on purely scientific grounds but require judgments of a completely different sort -- and here different people may give different answers: if one person might say, in such a conversation, that our obligation not to cause any unnecessary suffering is simply a non-negotiable axiom, there would be (in some sense) a dogma there, but adherence to such dogma in that conversation (mixing both scientific and non-scientific thought) would not at all suggest that the person were hostile to science, unappreciative of science, unable to understand science, or unable to do science; and even though the notion of an "obligation-not-to-cause-any-unnecessary-suffering" cannot be regarded as a scientific notion, since it cannot be proved or disproved by experiments in the natural world, many of us will consider the notion to be useful and productive. It would, of course, be an entirely different matter if the person believed (say) that the notion an "obligation-not-to-cause-any-unnecessary-suffering" could play any role in attempts to measure more accurately the advance of the perihelion of Mercury: that WOULD call into question the quality of the person's scientific thought

Similarly, while actually engaged in scientific work on the theory of the evolution, a person is restricted to purely scientific methods and arguments. But nothing prevents that same person from leaving the work aside for a few hours or days to consider what the work might mean to our non-scientific philosophical understandings

[trotsky]

19. No one is doing any such thing.

You are trying to take this from the central issue of "Using god as an explanation is not scientific" and turn it into a proclamation that "Only atheists can be true scientists."

No one has said this, so while you're doing an awesome job arguing against that position, you should probably find someone who actually holds it.

[struggle4progress]

26. Well, let's see. The HuffPo article is really about global warming and suggests

that the GOP's right-wing anti-regulatory business interests pander to anti-science fundamentalists, because the fundamentalists use religious arguments to discredit science, thereby derailing discussion of climate facts:

... The Republican party .. premier sponsor of religious groups fighting .. scientific education .. does not want to lend credibility to the science behind climate change because it will force the party's wealthy corporate donors to take responsibility .. for the damage they inflict .... And .. religious groups want to keep an honest discussion of climate change out of school textbooks ... That is not just disturbing but downright dangerous ...

Average global temperatures have increased by 1 degree Celsius over the last century and scientists are projecting a 3-10 degree Fahrenheit rise by the end of this century
Sea levels have risen by 4-8 inches over the last century and are projected to rise between 4 and 36 inches over the next 100 years
Storms are increasing in intensity all over the world
A quarter of the planet's species face extinction by 2050 ...

This suggestion, about the material role of fundamentalist views in some anti-regulatory propaganda, seems to me potentially useful to our understanding of the actual organization of opposition to climate-related regulation

I see not evidence in the article to support your claim "The author does not actually accept science" -- the author IMO is arguing that good science needs to be taught in the schools. The apparent basis of your objection is the fact that the author believes

... God created the scientific processes and physical laws that govern our existence, and it is those that gradually gave birth to everything else, and there is absolutely no contradiction between those two things ...

You and I seem agree that such beliefs cannot actually contribute to scientific data collection or theory-building. But you would recklessly go much further, denouncing anyone who holds such views as a person who "does not .. accept science"

[trotsky]

30. The evidence for my claim has already been presented.

It's in the article.

The author accepts more science than young earth creationists, to be sure, but simply draws the same line ("after this, GOD&quot they do, just in a different place. The author rejects the idea that evolution is a wholly natural process - and instead believes it involves a god. That's not science.

Still waiting for you to actually address this.

[eomer]

29. No, my point was about looking to God as the explanation for any natural world observable.

Doing that, specifically that, is unscientific.

Having discussions about philosophy or morality (that don't include explanation of natural phenomena) is something else, not anything to do with science, except that one might study the science of the brain, the ability to have such thoughts and discussions, and so on.

Perhaps we agree?