God and Nature Winter 2022
a dialogue |
|
By Sy Garte
Some time ago, I had the following dialogue with the well known atheist and scientist Larry Moran on Facebook. It's reproduced here without editing. It started with a question that Larry put to his readers:
Larry Moran: I'm asking you to present the sort of knowledge that religion can discover that's entirely outside of science as a way of knowing. It's not a difficult task. Just identify some of that knowledge and tell me what criteria you are using to verify that it's true. Remember, that if it's true knowledge then I should be able to verify on my own that's it's true and so should every other person on the planet. That's important because we have to distinguish between true knowledge and delusion that can't be indepentently verified.
Sy Garte: As a research scientist and a former non-believer who became a fully devoted Christian (while remaining a scientist) perhaps I can shed some light on this question. First though we must re-frame it, because there is an assumption that true knowledge must be independently confirmed by unbiased observers. This is a re-statement of one of the key principles of scientific epistemology, and therefore does not belong in a question regarding religious, (or artistic or emotional or several other) methods of epistemology.
When I began to (quite slowly) gain knowledge regarding the truth of Jesus Christ, it was not in any way related to the kinds of knowledge I was used to as a scientist. Unlike my burden of showing evidence to the general scientific community and defending my conclusions against contradictory views from anyone with different data or interpretations, which is the norm in science, I found that my burden of the demonstration of truth was limited to myself. I needed to amass the evidence, which included such subjective elements as emotional conviction, joy, and spiritual enlightenment necessary to convince myself, and only myself that what I had found was true.
Some time ago, I had the following dialogue with the well known atheist and scientist Larry Moran on Facebook. It's reproduced here without editing. It started with a question that Larry put to his readers:
Larry Moran: I'm asking you to present the sort of knowledge that religion can discover that's entirely outside of science as a way of knowing. It's not a difficult task. Just identify some of that knowledge and tell me what criteria you are using to verify that it's true. Remember, that if it's true knowledge then I should be able to verify on my own that's it's true and so should every other person on the planet. That's important because we have to distinguish between true knowledge and delusion that can't be indepentently verified.
Sy Garte: As a research scientist and a former non-believer who became a fully devoted Christian (while remaining a scientist) perhaps I can shed some light on this question. First though we must re-frame it, because there is an assumption that true knowledge must be independently confirmed by unbiased observers. This is a re-statement of one of the key principles of scientific epistemology, and therefore does not belong in a question regarding religious, (or artistic or emotional or several other) methods of epistemology.
When I began to (quite slowly) gain knowledge regarding the truth of Jesus Christ, it was not in any way related to the kinds of knowledge I was used to as a scientist. Unlike my burden of showing evidence to the general scientific community and defending my conclusions against contradictory views from anyone with different data or interpretations, which is the norm in science, I found that my burden of the demonstration of truth was limited to myself. I needed to amass the evidence, which included such subjective elements as emotional conviction, joy, and spiritual enlightenment necessary to convince myself, and only myself that what I had found was true.
"In science we say let the data convince you. In religion I say let God convince you". |
Now, it is correct that this has the risk of allowing delusional or "wishful” thinking to pass as actual truth, and its therefore necessary to guard against that. There are a number of methods to do so. One is to ask whether I am the only person who has drawn the same conclusion from the same subjective experiences. Note the key difference. In science we define truth when everyone comes to the same conclusion (in other words a consensus), whereas I am asking if anyone has. In the case of Christianity the answer of course is yes, quite a few people have come to the same conclusions. Another method is to ask myself, what effects does this kind of truth have on my understanding and acceptance of scientific truth. Delusions tend to affect more than one particular way of thinking. If the answer is none, or that it strengthens my acceptance of scientific truth, then delusion is unlikely.
Using those methods I came to the conclusion that my new-found knowledge of the truth of Christiany was as true as my knowledge about the sublime music of Bach, the genius of Kandinsky and the love of my wife. And as true (but in a different way) as my knowledge of protein synthesis.
Larry Moran: Thank-you for sharing that perspective. You must know that there are hundreds of million followers of Hinduism who feel quite strongly that they have found a very different “truth” about their religious beliefs. Do you believe that their “truth” is as valid as yours? If not, how am I supposed to decide which group is correct or whether you are both wrong? How do YOU decide without abandoning your scientific principles?
You must also know that there are hundreds of millions of atheists like me who think there are no gods. We are convinced that our lack of belief in gods is perfectly consistent with science. How can you convince us that we are missing the truth you have discovered by personal introspection?
Sy Garte: My answer, comes directly from my scientific world view. I think one of the most significant lines in the Bible is when Pilate asks Jesus "what is truth" and gets no answer. We cannot in fact know absolute truth. Certainly not in science. Remember the arguments over the number of genes, and the ongoing controversy about the function of non-coding sequences. Different biologists believe different things, from "its all junk" to "most of it is useful" and everything in between. Eventually these disagreements fade as time passes and more data is gathered. Sometimes it happens quickly, sometimes (as in the age-old replicator first vs. metabolism first debate for abiogenesis) it takes a while.
I think the same thing happens with religion, but on a much slower time scale. Or perhaps, such a resolution will never come, and religious diversity will continue as it always has. Again, I would claim that the decision to believe in Jesus, or Mohammed or Krishna or none of the above is a personal one, and need not be deemed a universal truth. I am not an apologist, in the sense that I do not actively try to convince anyone that I'm right about my faith and they should agree with me. In science we say let the data convince you. In religion I say "let God convince you".
Larry Moran: Science has a way of resolving controversy and, as you point out, it involves collecting evidence and using logic and rational thought to interpret it.
How does religion resolve controversy? What ways of knowing does religion use to decide whether gods exist and which ones are the right ones? What methods does religion use to decide whether the first chapters of the Bible are to be taken literally? From the outside, it doesn't look like Hindus or native Americans have a really good method for demonstrating that their views are correct.
Sy Garte: The methods religion uses are actually obvious. It's often pointed out how many Christian denominations exist. Some have gone extinct, others are likely to. There are no more Shakers (well, there's another reason for that). And the theological basics of established denominations, and whole religions change over time. Modern Judaism is not much like Biblical Judaism, modern Islam has evolved from Medieval Islam. Even Catholicism has evolved to some extent (perhaps more analogous to biological evolution - at a very slow pace). Many historical religious controversies have been resolved, and of course new ones crop up, much like in science. Instead of external objective facts being the drivers for change and resolution, it is cultural, theological and (recently) even scientific influences that drive religious change.
Larry Moran I agree with you that it is cultural change that drives peoples views on a lot of things, including religion. In most cases we think the changes are for the better (e.g. status of women, slavery, democracy, social justice) and we attribute that to an enlightened view of the world based on increased knowledge of science and of how societies should operate.
We have been seeing a steady decline in the influence of religion including large numbers of people who have abandoned religion altogether. That's consistent, in my view, with most cultural changes.
Sy Garte No doubt there has been a decline in religious observance in the West, and I agree that cultural changes are largely responsible. But history suggests that the positive changes you mentioned are not solely due to scientific accomplishments. Remember that abolitionism, civil rights, and ideas of equality and freedom also came from Christian churches and leaders. As I mentioned above, religion changes also, though more slowly and I believe the current downturn is temporary, soon to be replaced by a renewed awaking of the Spirit and message of Jesus. And further I believe that new awakening will be accompanied by denial of the warfare myth between science and faith. There is only one truth, and that is God’s truth.
Sy Garte Ph.D. Biochemistry, is Editor-in-Chief of God and Nature, and the author of The Works of His Hands: A Scientist's Journey from Atheism to Faith. He has been a Professor of Public Health and Environmental Health Sciences at New York University, Rutgers University, and the University of Pittsburgh. He was also Associate Director at the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH. He is the author of five books, over 200 scientific papers, and articles in PSCF and God and Nature. Sy is Vice President of the Washington DC ASA Chapter, and a fellow of the ASA.
Using those methods I came to the conclusion that my new-found knowledge of the truth of Christiany was as true as my knowledge about the sublime music of Bach, the genius of Kandinsky and the love of my wife. And as true (but in a different way) as my knowledge of protein synthesis.
Larry Moran: Thank-you for sharing that perspective. You must know that there are hundreds of million followers of Hinduism who feel quite strongly that they have found a very different “truth” about their religious beliefs. Do you believe that their “truth” is as valid as yours? If not, how am I supposed to decide which group is correct or whether you are both wrong? How do YOU decide without abandoning your scientific principles?
You must also know that there are hundreds of millions of atheists like me who think there are no gods. We are convinced that our lack of belief in gods is perfectly consistent with science. How can you convince us that we are missing the truth you have discovered by personal introspection?
Sy Garte: My answer, comes directly from my scientific world view. I think one of the most significant lines in the Bible is when Pilate asks Jesus "what is truth" and gets no answer. We cannot in fact know absolute truth. Certainly not in science. Remember the arguments over the number of genes, and the ongoing controversy about the function of non-coding sequences. Different biologists believe different things, from "its all junk" to "most of it is useful" and everything in between. Eventually these disagreements fade as time passes and more data is gathered. Sometimes it happens quickly, sometimes (as in the age-old replicator first vs. metabolism first debate for abiogenesis) it takes a while.
I think the same thing happens with religion, but on a much slower time scale. Or perhaps, such a resolution will never come, and religious diversity will continue as it always has. Again, I would claim that the decision to believe in Jesus, or Mohammed or Krishna or none of the above is a personal one, and need not be deemed a universal truth. I am not an apologist, in the sense that I do not actively try to convince anyone that I'm right about my faith and they should agree with me. In science we say let the data convince you. In religion I say "let God convince you".
Larry Moran: Science has a way of resolving controversy and, as you point out, it involves collecting evidence and using logic and rational thought to interpret it.
How does religion resolve controversy? What ways of knowing does religion use to decide whether gods exist and which ones are the right ones? What methods does religion use to decide whether the first chapters of the Bible are to be taken literally? From the outside, it doesn't look like Hindus or native Americans have a really good method for demonstrating that their views are correct.
Sy Garte: The methods religion uses are actually obvious. It's often pointed out how many Christian denominations exist. Some have gone extinct, others are likely to. There are no more Shakers (well, there's another reason for that). And the theological basics of established denominations, and whole religions change over time. Modern Judaism is not much like Biblical Judaism, modern Islam has evolved from Medieval Islam. Even Catholicism has evolved to some extent (perhaps more analogous to biological evolution - at a very slow pace). Many historical religious controversies have been resolved, and of course new ones crop up, much like in science. Instead of external objective facts being the drivers for change and resolution, it is cultural, theological and (recently) even scientific influences that drive religious change.
Larry Moran I agree with you that it is cultural change that drives peoples views on a lot of things, including religion. In most cases we think the changes are for the better (e.g. status of women, slavery, democracy, social justice) and we attribute that to an enlightened view of the world based on increased knowledge of science and of how societies should operate.
We have been seeing a steady decline in the influence of religion including large numbers of people who have abandoned religion altogether. That's consistent, in my view, with most cultural changes.
Sy Garte No doubt there has been a decline in religious observance in the West, and I agree that cultural changes are largely responsible. But history suggests that the positive changes you mentioned are not solely due to scientific accomplishments. Remember that abolitionism, civil rights, and ideas of equality and freedom also came from Christian churches and leaders. As I mentioned above, religion changes also, though more slowly and I believe the current downturn is temporary, soon to be replaced by a renewed awaking of the Spirit and message of Jesus. And further I believe that new awakening will be accompanied by denial of the warfare myth between science and faith. There is only one truth, and that is God’s truth.
Sy Garte Ph.D. Biochemistry, is Editor-in-Chief of God and Nature, and the author of The Works of His Hands: A Scientist's Journey from Atheism to Faith. He has been a Professor of Public Health and Environmental Health Sciences at New York University, Rutgers University, and the University of Pittsburgh. He was also Associate Director at the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH. He is the author of five books, over 200 scientific papers, and articles in PSCF and God and Nature. Sy is Vice President of the Washington DC ASA Chapter, and a fellow of the ASA.