sign in sign up
<<
Home , Kendrick Frazier

true skeptic may have difficulty dis- AND RELIGION proving intelligent design, arguing pri- marily on the basis of "irreducible com- plexity," a concept many research biolo- The Experts Weigh In gists have already discredited. Dembski then urges scientists to make a greater effort to show the general public they are caring people who take the side of Stuart Jordan humanity. Massimo Pigliucci argues the case Science and Religion-Are They Compatible?, edited by Paul against intelligent design, demonstrating Kurtz, with the assistance of and Ranjit Sandhu why there is no need for a designer to (Amherst, N.Y.: , 2003, ISBN 1·59102·064-6) explain the evolution of complex struc- 350 pp. Paper $20. tures. Eugenie Scott offers four ways to characterize the relationship of science to religion, ranging from the "warfare" model to the "engagement" model in which science and religion interact as equal partners. Naturally, most religious his book presents a critique of arguments for the anthropic principle in scholars in "the science and religion several current religious and New Glynn's book God: The Evidence and movement" prefer the latter. However, TAge claims, beginning with an gives them rough treatment, though one wonders how they will react if mod- introductory section that defines the with engaging humor. ern neurobiology fails to find evidence problem. Editor notes that A view favoring religion is presented for free will. The final essay in this sec- there is a profound difference between by Owen Gingerich, professor of astron- tion, by Taner Edis, discusses Islamic science and religion in their different omy at Harvard. He notes with approval arguments that perceived harmony in approaches to truth. While science the argument that it is more likely there the universe leads to belief in God, a requires an open mind, free inquiry, and is a God who designed the universe with stance that, however emotionally ap- a willingness to question assumptions us in mind than that cosmic inflation led pealing it may be, does not satisfy the critically, religions have relied largely to us naturally Considering that the God truth standards of science. on faith in specific revelations and their assumption has no physical evidence to Part 3 considers "Religion and interpretation by established religious back it up, this is a leap of faith indeed. Science in Conflict." Vern Bullough pro- authorities. Skeptical Inquire?" Editor Nevertheless, the religious position is vides an historical perspective, conclud- Kendrick Frazier then explores the presented well, as Gingerich writes ing that most scientists are willing to boundaries between science and reli- clearly and with feeling. live with tolerant religions, but when gion to reveal areas of overlap as well as Quentin Smith examines the religious fundamentalists angrily attack scien- the uniqueness of each. argument that the universe could not tists have no choice but to defend sci- Part 1, "Cosmology and God," ad- have been uncaused, and that therefore ence. Timothy Moy gives a good review dresses some of the claims by religious some cosmic agent was responsible for of the well-known Galileo affair. Sir believers that modern cosmology, par- its emergence. He argues there is no Hermann Bondi argues that, while sci- ticularly "Big Bang" cosmology, offers compelling (and, also, no evi- ence unites the world today, religion is evidence for a creator. obel Laureate dence) for this position, as we have never dividing it. Daniel C. Dennett makes the Steven Weinberg points out that there is observed anything to come into existence case for the importance of truth and no need for such a being in order to from "nothing." Astrophysicist Neil why it is not just a matter of each per- explain the emergence of the universe if Tyson ends the section on cosmology by son's opinion, noting how getting it right you understand the laws of modern noting, "if I propose a God beyond that greatly increases the chances for, quantum physics. Astrophysicist Victor horizon (of our current knowledge), ... among other things, human survival. Stenger offers further arguments the day will come when our sphere of Jacob Pandian points out the dangers of against the anthropic coincidence, a knowledge will have grown so large that too much "cooperation" between sci- variant of a dubious old argument (with a nod to Laplace) I will have no ence and religion, lest the latter define known as intelligent design, which need of that hypothesis." the agenda for the former. Barry claims that certain features of the uni- Part 2 addresses "Intelligent Design: Palevitz relates his experiences teach- verse require an intelligent designer. Creationism versus Science." Kendrick ing students to recognize the difference David Shotwell takes on Patrick Glynn's Frazier attacks the dogmatic views of between science and religion, urging creationists directly. He notes how sub- them to put the burden of proof on reli- Stuart Jordan is a senior staff scien- tle arguments for intelligent design gion, not science, and citing creationism tist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight have given aid and comfort to funda- as an example. Arthur C. Clarke demon- Center. He is also president of the mentalists, especially in the United strates again his talent for evoking won- Washington Area Secular Humanists. States. William Dembski argues that a der at the majesty of the natural world

m http://www.secularhumanism.org f H October/November 2003 in a stirring excerpt from one of his ious Belief," Paul Kurtz reviews While each author adopts a different many books. why people believe, arguing that since approach, and all but one (Martin Part 4, "Science and Ethics," reviews the question involves how human beings Gardner, a well-known skeptic!) remain the relationship of science to ethics, function, the subject is well suited to sci- skeptical of "supernatural" claims, each beginning with 's entific investigation. Anthony Layng acknowledges there are compelling rea- arguments for "non-overlapping magis- reviews the role of cultures in inculcating sons why so many people are religious. teria," under which science sticks to and reinforcing those beliefs experience Secular humanist leader Paul Kurtz describing nature while religion takes showed had group survival value. Morton offers a summary that incorporates care of ethics. This idea has not pros- Hunt seeks the biological basis for belief, many points made by the others. Kurtz pered among most scientists; Richard concluding that our phylogenetic ally affirms there is a proper domain for reli- Dawkins and Richard Feynman both determined intellectual, emotional, and gion in a secular world, but that this deconstruct it, though Feynman's argu- social propensities, reinforced by cul- domain is solely expressive and emotive. ments are less dismissive of Gould's ture, provide a good explanation. Steven This reviewer would agree with one position. Pinker notes that religious beliefs come caveat, expressed by Steven Weinberg in In Part 5, Paul Kurtz, Richard from somewhere, perhaps from dreams, his earlier essay: "One of the greatest Wiseman, Ciaran O'Keeffe, Antony Flew, so we should seek their natural origin achievements of science has been, if not Jerome Elbert, Irwin Tessman, Jack accordingly. David Noelle notes that the to make it possible for intelligent people Tessman, and describe "The kind of temporal lobe malfunction to be religious, then at least to make it Scientific Investigation of Paranatural involved in epilepsy may convince some possible for them not to be religious. We Claims." Claims investigated include life people they are tuning in to something should not retreat from this accom- after death, after-death communication transcendental when the process is plishment" (emphasis mine). (spiritualism), near-death experiences entirely natural. In today's culture wars, where so (interpreted "spiritually"), the existence In "Accommodating Science and many fundamentalists would reverse of the soul, the efficacy of prayer, and Religion," , James the course of history, this cannot be shroud of Turin "science." None of the Lovelock, Chet Raymo, Matt Young, and emphasized enough. The book is highly claims stand up to critical examination. Paul Kurtz provide concluding com- recommended for all who care about In "Scientific Explanations of Relig- ments on science and religion today. these issues. m:J

so-called Strong Program in the sociolo- A LONG-AWAITED DEFENSE gy of knowledge, which claims to have undermined the idea that science OF REASON advances because of the growth of knowledge discovered in the course of disinterested research. Nola builds a Bill Cooke convincing case that the Strong Pro- gram founders on its failure either to distinguish knowledge from belief, or to Rescuing Reason: A Critique of Anti-Rationalist views of Science and demonstrate any lawlike relationship Knowledge, by Robert Nola (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer between social circumstances and the Academic Publishers, 2003, ISBN 1-4020-1042-7) 559 pp. Cloth development of scientific beliefs. $198. Paper $48. Nola is similarly ruthless with Foucault, showing that his central thesis of the power/knowledge link is hopeless- escuing Reason is an important Pittsburgh's Center for the Philosophy ly obscure. Foucault, Nola, says, "runs book, being on the one hand a of Science. It now appears as volume with the hares of rational epistemology Rcontribution to the counterattack 230 of the Boston Studies in the and hunts with the hounds of postmod- against the irrationalism and nihilism . ernism panting for the blood of rational- that masquerade under the term post- Over the years that Rescuing ity" (p. 369). Like the Strong Program modernism, and on the other hand a Reason was coming together, the coun- sociologists, Foucault fails to distin- valuable restatement and refinement of terattack against postmodernism has guish between knowledge and belief, or naturalist philosophy. been gathering apace. Nola's contribu- between various understandings of This book has had a long gestation, tion is new and important because his knowledge. going back to 1995 when Robert Nola of focus is on the epistemological flaws in Most important, in my view, Nola then the Philosophy Department at the the thinkers on which he has chosen to turns on ietzsche's influential notion of University of Auckland, New Zealand, focus. To take one example, Nola expos- Will to Power which, he argues, is fatally was a visiting fellow at the University of es a tangle of confusions underlying the undermined in many ways, not least by

free inquiry http.y /www.secufarhurnantsm.org