Interesting Stuff Thread

On the meaning of life

Thu, Jul 14, 2011

Given the inherent conflict, perhaps we should separate science and religion, writes PAUL O'DONOGHUE

THAT HOARY old chestnut that is the conflict between science and religion arose again recently when the eminent cosmologist, astrophysicist and Astronomer Royal, Martin Reese, was awarded the Templeton Prize for 2011. Set up by the late US billionaire, John Templeton, the prize is awarded to a living person who has made “exceptional contributions to affirming life’s spiritual dimension”.

The prize is valued at £1 million (€1.13m) and is stipulated always to be above the value of the Nobel Prize. John Templeton described himself as an enthusiastic Christian and his foundation funds studies in which science can be interpreted as interfacing with religion. A number of atheist scientists balked at Reese accepting the prize, including evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and Nobel Prize-winning chemist Sir Harry Kroto. It’s a lot of money to turn down.

The Templeton Foundation has been accused of awarding the prize to scientists so that they will make positive statements regarding the relationship between science and religious beliefs, hence the controversy.

Reese is an avowed atheist who often attends chapel (as Master of Trinity College Cambridge), as he enjoys the ritual and the famous Trinity choir. It appears, however, that his work has failed to convince him of the existence of a spiritual dimension to life.

In a recent survey of scientists’ views on religion, sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund found 34 per cent of respondents were atheists and 30 per cent were agnostic. This compares with 6 per cent of the public who fall into one or other of these categories. What surprised her was that 22 per cent of the atheist scientists described themselves as spiritual. However, it appears scientific spirituality is of the non-theistic kind and refers to a sense of wonder at the universe.

Surveys of scientists’ religious beliefs seem to indicate that about one-third are atheists, one-third agnostics and one-third theists. An exception is a study of members of the National Academy of Science, often referred to as elite scientists, which indicated 72 per cent were atheist, 21 per cent agnostic and 7 per cent believers. Other data from a range of studies suggest differences across professions, for example 76 per cent of doctors believe in God while 50 per cent of psychologists and 44 per cent of engineers are atheists, and 61 per cent of biologists are either atheists or agnostics.

Considering whether studying science may lead one away from religious beliefs, it has been suggested by Ecklund that non-religious people are drawn to scientific professions, while Farr Curlin has suggested that scientifically inclined religious people gravitate towards medicine. Whatever the reasons, scientists differ massively from the general population in their non-belief.

It is often implied that without belief in a God there can be no moral compass. Having attended the World Atheist Convention in Dublin in June, I certainly saw no evidence of this. Many moral issues were thoroughly discussed and debated and at the end of the congress, the Dublin Declaration on Secularism and the Place of Religion in Public Life was launched. It is an optimistic and enlightening document.

It is short, and well worth reading and debating. It promotes tolerance and respect for people of all religions and none, so long as respect is shown for the rights and freedoms of others. It argues for a secular, democratic State with no privileges for any religion and a reliance on reason and evidence in decision making and policy formation.

It argues that children should be educated in critical thinking and that science should be taught free from religious interference. The former seems eminently sensible, as credulity constitutes the default mode in human beings.

Thinking about why it is that so many scientists are non-believers, it seems to me that there is great difficulty in maintaining a materialist scientific viewpoint that has explained so much in such a short time, while simultaneously accepting the revelatory and supernatural nature of religious beliefs.

Scientists are trained sceptics and critical thinkers, and perhaps the only way to cope with these opposing world views is never to marry them. To apply scientific thinking to the claims and practices of religion is to open up to rational enquiry dictates and revelations that by definition must be totally accepted on blind trust – the essence of faith. Scientists obviously don’t do faith very well compared to the rest of the population.

Paul O’Donoghue is a clinical psychologist and a founder member of the Irish Skeptics Society.

contact@irishskeptics.org

Reese is an avowed atheist who often attends chapel

© 2011 The Irish Times