Sam Harris recently had an email exchange with Philip Ball about “What should science do?” and was able to post it online.
Their recently history is a bit of a soap opera. Philip Ball is a writer for Nature and wrote a disapproving article about Sam Harris’ Reason Project in “How Much Reason Do You Want?” Sam Harris retaliated by putting Mr. Ball into the “Reason Project Hall of Shame.”
This was their attempt to work things out. I’m not at all sure it worked, but their exchange is at least interesting!
While I wasn’t able to take the time to read the full exchange, my impression was that it was Philip Ball that was the “reasoned” person here and Sam Harris, et. al. was as vindictive as ever, no doubt trying to score points to assist in the sales of his next book!
I have to respond to this. As a passionate advocate for reasoned thinking myself, I feel Sam’s passion and frustration. This does not seem to be about selling books. Yes, he was “righteously angry”. We should all be angry when a respectable scientific magazine is so utterly clueless about what is going on in the real world. Phil’s apathetic stance makes him appear wishy-washy, and sometimes downright ridiculous. It seems obvious that religious belief is the foundation for everything in a human being, and when people’s beliefs are based on religious absurdity, their actions will be equally insane. I don’t need to go into the damage religion causes, because that is addressed many times over on Daniel Florien’s blog. Why is being passionate about something critically important be “vindictive”?
I spent a good part of yesterday reading that exchange, going back to it occasionally. I’m just now on Sam’s last words.
While some would see Sam as unecessarily argumentative, I apreciate that he really tried hard to stay on topic, and to get his point accross that a publication as influential as Nature need not be as intellectually lazy as most other journals by being so p.c. as to be “too nice” and let religion off the hook when it comes to science and religion continuing to somehow coexist despite their conflicting tenets.
I felt the mentioning of Dawkins’ “I’m and atheist, but…” was a good point. Phil kept pushing his feeling that religion is not so much an intellectual dishonesty as it is simply a social inevitability among tribes. I believe Phil even said this, but he is clearly of the “I’m an atheist, but religion has always been, and seems to be here to stay, and I think that’s ok because it makes people feel good for some reason.” Sam made his usual great analogies to show that if you think that way in a different context, it sounds absurd, therefore that case should be just as absurd.
It’s nice for me to see that two experienced writers and debators can manage to misinterpret one another just like we often do here.
The basic argument seems to me that religion and science are compatible versus incompatible. I agree with Harris that they are incompatible.
Bingo. I agree as well. Though I don’t have a gripe with people (a majority of the USA) having this paradoxical thought process (accepting science when its not speaking about your faith and disagreeing when it is) when its confined to the home and the congregation. The problem is when it gets outside these walls and works its way into the politcal and social sphere. These are the realms where this thought process shouldn’t stand in the face of proper criticism. But indeed it stands and defys, often proudly, because most in a position to do something about it lack the pair to challenge it.
It is nice to have someone as eloquent as Harris on our side though.
The problem is that these beliefs always creep into real life. That is the whole point of religion, isn’t it? And I agree with you that it is wonderful having a spokesman like Harris. I hope he never stops pushing this important issue.
Harris is prone to black-and-white thinking of the sort I despise in a recent former president. I do agree with his conclusion on the compatibility of science with religion.
But, is not his black-and-white thinking part of the problem.
We have, over the past century-and-a-half or so, become so used to such black-and-white and linear answers in science that, when presented with problems that don’t fit we’re not sure how to handle it. Quantum theory? What was before the “Big-Bang”?
What is your point, there?
I think almost nothing in science is linear or black and white. Everything is ‘closest approximation’ or ‘best working model’.
Quantum theory is being actively studied right now. We don’t know the answers, but we can create good models based on what we do know, and make useful predictions.
What came before the big bang may never be known because of the nature of space-time, and it may turn out to be a nonsense question anyway. But no one is scared of it. People are doing science to try and peek behind that veil even now.
Science is confronted with questions for which they have no answers all the time. That’s what science is. But the question is just step 1, and then the real work begins.
So, again, what was your point, exactly?
That IS the point. Maybe there is no “exactly” all the time. Alternatives?
Huh?
Is that intended to make sense?
I just got done explaining that there is no such thing as black and white revealed truth in science. Science is always open to alternatives.
It’s just that they expect you to back up your alternate theories with evidence. Which is the test that the woo-ers always fail.
I think Harris is trying to be clear, and strip the issues to the core. That’s why it appears “black and white”. And when you do that, it is clear. I’m not sure why a scientist would not understand this. The point is this – religion is delusional, stops people from being intellectually honest at best, and causes war, murder and destruction at worst. What could be more clear than that?
Interesting post, Daniel. Just wanted to point out that you wrote “recently” instead of “recent”, though. :)
It was frustrating to read this email exchange, because Ball seems to be out of touch with what religious people really believe, and seems to be amazingly obtuse about the damage it causes. He must be living in an academic ivory tower where everything, no matter how absurd or damaging, goes. If it feels good, do it kinda thing. I really appreciate Harris trying so hard to get through to him, but it was an impossible task. It really bothers me that a respected science magazine is so unaware of the enormous and growing gulf between religion and science.
This reminded me of an exchange I had with the “Apathetic Agnostic” church online. They published my question, and answered me. I followed up with another comment, and apparently this will be published on this same site tomorrow with another answer. I fear we will do no better than Sam and Phil. I’m just surprised when anyone is unaware of the destructiveness of irrational beliefs, especially those perpetuated by books like the Bible and Koran, both of which condone violence on nearly every group.
http://www.uctaa.net/articles/quanda/qa9/q200.html