8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 1/29
Values of Godless Science: Modern Science
Needs No Religion or Gods for Values
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Modern, Godless Science is not Value-Free:
It is commonly claimed by both critics and supporters that modern
science is value-free. This is false, though it is true that science lacks
many of the values traditionally ascribed to religion and doesn’t make
any value judgments about the use of scientific knowledge. On the other
hand, the very ability of science to function as it does, and so
successfully, is dependent upon a set of very important values. Some ofthose values are explained here.
Work & Discipline:
Science is a difficult field to be successful in. Nothing gets done in
science without a great deal of hard work, long hours, and the discipline
necessary to work those long hours. Very little in science can be
described as “glamorous” — most scientific work involves poring over
large amounts of data and tiny details that would make most people’seyes just glaze over. This work is necessary, however, because it builds
the foundations for new discoveries.
Honesty:
Every profession depends upon its members being honest for the
profession to function. In science this requirement can be even more
important. Many scientists work independently and their results are then
incorporated into the work of other scientists. Faulty data can thus takeon a life of its own, infecting the honest work of researchers around the
world. Fortunately there are systems in place to catch and eliminate
cheating, but they don’t always catch problems immediately.
Reason:
One of the most important values of science is the use of reason.
Problems aren’t assumed to be solved by tradition, faith, or simply
trusting someone’s word. The use of reason helps ensure that
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 2/29
explanations and solutions are based upon reality rather than upon
personal preference, what is politically correct, or what is ideologically
convenient. Reason can of course be misused, but no more so than
anything else — and thus far, reason has proven to be more reliable than
anything else.
Community:
Although it’s common for scientists to work alone, science isn’t
really a solitary profession. Scientists are part of a larger scientific
community, one which encompasses both those in the same field and
those involved in other aspects of scientific research. All are interlinked,
such that the results reached by anyone may help the work of others. The
community also helps ensure the reliability of everyone’s work becauseto be properly scientific, research must be reviewed by peers.
Questioning Authority & Critical Thinking:
Although there are authority figures in science like there are in
every profession, this authority is not absolute. Scientists are encouraged
to question and challenge the claims and results which authority figures
offer. After all, the next biggest name in science will be someone who can
prove that an earlier theory was wrong, or at least incomplete, andtherefore that current authority figures have been mistaken. Every
scientist has a vested interest in questioning authority.
Imagination:
It’s common to think of scientists as focused on logic, but a very
good imagination can be more necessary to being a good scientist.
Imagination is important because it allows one to think of new
possibilities which may not be evident from the raw data alone.Imagination also allows one to develop new explanations which also
aren’t immediately supported by the data, and this provides an impetus
to look for the data. Often, it’s imagination that draws a person to science
in the first place.
Progress & Improvement:
One important feature of science is that it is never static. No
explanation is ever final or complete and there is always new data thathas be to explained, so there is never any feeling that the work of
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 3/29
scientists is finished. This means that scientists are always looking
towards improvement and progress at all times. Science works for the
betterment of humanity and society, helping us all move forward rather
than simply being content with where we are now.
Methodology Over Conclusions:
One value of science which many can miss is the emphasis on
focusing on proper methodology over conclusions. What this means is
that work must not be done for the sake of reaching particular and
favored conclusions. Instead, one must focus on following the proper
scientific methodology and reasoning. This helps guarantee that one is
more likely to arrive at the correct conclusions and correct explanations,
regardless of what they may be. Imagine if other fields, like politics,worked this way.
Godless Science and the Enlightenment:
Modern science is largely an outgrowth of the Enlightenment and
that, in turn, was a period when religious institutions and ecclesiastical
authorities began to really lose their power over most aspects of people’s
lives. The Enlightenment was thoroughly secular in that it did not derive
its impetus or principles from religious tradition or authority. The mostfundamental values of godless science are thus also the values of
modernity: skepticism, empiricism, and secularism. It’s not a coincidence
that science and modernity developed side-by-side: godless science has
reinforced secular modernity while secular modernity has provided the
atmosphere in which godless science could thrive.
What this means is that it isn’t possible to defend one without also
defending the other. Secular modernity won’t be able to proceed very far
without the reinforcing support which godless science is able to provide;godless science won’t be able to continue helping us understand the
world around us without the atmosphere created by secular modernity.
Not only do they need each other, but we need them as well: secular
modernity provides the freedom and room for people to follow their
consciences and explore their religious beliefs; godless science has
become invaluable to our survival as a species.
Science is often maligned for being godless, but godlessness is
largely why science is successful: being godless means that science is notbeholden to any religious ideology or perspective. If it were, then it
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 4/29
wouldn’t be truly free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Science is
also often maligned for lacking values, but science has many values —
it’s just that they are values which are fundamental to our secular,
godless modernity. It is this which most upsets critics because those
values are proving their superiority to the religious values which anti-modern ideologues would rather promote.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 5/29
Myth: Science is a Religion for Atheists that
Requires Faith
Does Science Require as Much Faith as Religion,Christianity?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Myth:
Science is the atheists' religion for the modern world, like Christianity or
Islam, except that it is more superstitious and less refined. Atheists' belief in
science requires faith like religion, but atheists doesn't recognize and accept itsreliance on faith.
Response:
Throughout the course of modern history, science and the scientific
method have contributed substantially to the reduced scope of religious
claims about the world as well as the scope of religious authority.
Science has done far more to both explain the world around us and help
us improve our condition than millennia of religion. It's not surprising
that some religious believers resent this and among their response is to
deny that science is any different from religion.
An important aspect of this tactic is to insist that science doesn't
really provide objective knowledge about the world and that science
doesn't utilize a consistently reliable or proven method for acquiring
knowledge. Instead, science is supposed to be based on guesswork,
"theories," and false beliefs which are all inferior to "true" religions, like
Christianity, and their revelations from God, like the Bible.
There is a curious contradiction here because people who argue for
this myth end up involved in two efforts which should be recognized as
contrary: first, they have to denigrate science and argue that it really isn't
as good as defenders claims; second, they have to argue that science is
actually a type of religion which relies on faith, not unlike their own
religion uses faith.
Claiming that science is a religion is simply wrong because science
lacks the major characteristics which define religion1
and differentiatereligious belief systems from other belief systems. If we ignore that for a
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 6/29
moment, though, it doesn't make much sense to do this in the context of
denigrating science because that implies that one's own religion is also
inferior. It would be far more preferable to argue that one's own religion
is as good as science, and then that science is also a religion.
Why don't religious believers normally do this? The simple reasonis that they can't: the advances made by science, the benefits of science,
and reliability of science cannot be matched at any level by any religion2.
Religions have claimed for millennia that they have received special
information from gods, but at no point did any of those gods explain
how to utilize electricity, how to improve sanitation, the origins of
disease, and so forth. Much of this was already well underway even
during the earliest stages of modern science — it didn't even require a
fully developed scientific method or community for such progress to bemade.
To be fair, it can be argued that a certain amount of "faith" exists
with how average person accepts what science says. Few people are in a
position to confirm the results of modern scientific experiments so they
have to accept what others say based on their experience and authority.
Unlike with religion, however, anyone can in principle confirm those
experiments on their own — and the ability of others to repeat
experiments to make sure they are right is one of the things whichdefines the scientific method.
Moreover, most people can observe the practical impacts of what
science says and thus don't need to conduct experiments to confirm that
scientists are right. Not everyone is able to understand the theories
behind how electricity operates, but everyone is able to witness the
obvious and dramatic effects of electricity at work — both good and bad.
Some religious believers might claim the same on behalf of their
god, but there are many believers from many religions claiming the sameabout many different gods. Not all of those gods can exist, so not all of
the claimed "effects" can be attributed to real gods. Everyone, however,
uses the same electricity and sees the same effects of electricity. There
aren't alternative denominations of "energy" with competing claims
about what the "real" source of energy is. Thus the claims about gods and
their effects do have to be taken on faith, but the claims of science — like
for example the science of electricity — don't need to be taken on "faith"
in the same way.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 7/29
Godless Science: Modern Science is Secular,
Godless, Based On Naturalism
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Christian Attacks on Modern Science:
A primary target of the Christian Right in America is secular,
godless science. Modern science relies on methodological naturalism,
which means that it doesn’t incorporate any supernatural or religious
assumptions and doesn’t seek any religious or supernatural explanations
for natural phenomena. This outrages believers who think that theirreligious and theistic beliefs should be incorporated into everything in
life. In fact, though, modern science has to be secular and godless.
Godless Science Demands Evidence, not Faith:
All scientific explanations must ultimately be based on verifiable
evidence. Without evidence, a purported explanation may be little more
than speculation. In traditional religious and theistic systems, however,
claims and explanations are typically based upon faith — you eitheraccept them based upon faith or you do not. There is no presumption
that evidence exists or is even necessary. Indeed, if there were solid
evidence, faith would be irrelevant.
Godless Science Demands Critical Questioning, not Obedience:
Scientific progress would not occur if scientists were not
encouraged to question traditional assumptions, re-check older data, and
seek out anomalies which can lead to new, better explanations. Religiousand theistic systems, however, typically place far more emphasis on
obedience to authority and tradition, rejecting skeptical, critical
questioning of traditional beliefs. This helps religions preserve orthodox
beliefs over long periods of time while inhibiting progress.
Godless Science Demands Provisional Beliefs, Not Dogmas:
No matter how well supported by repeated evidence and
experimentation, all scientific explanations are technically provisional: it
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 8/29
is accepted that they could be overturned or expanded in the light of
new evidence. In religious and theistic systems, however, there is no
room made for the idea that beliefs are merely provisional. Since they are
not originally based on evidence, it is not contemplated that new
evidence will change anything. This is the basis for dogma and dogmaticbeliefs.
Godless Science Does Not Respect Tradition:
In science, the fact that a belief or explanation is traditional is
ultimately irrelevant. Science has been ruthless in its quest for better
explanations of natural phenomena and the history of science is littered
with the carcasses of traditional explanations found to be inadequate or
completely false. Religious and theistic systems, however, rely heavilyon tradition and are often focused upon preserving those traditions, even
against the pressures of secular, godless science.
Godless Science is Based Upon Godless Mathematics:
It is sometimes said that all science reduces to mathematics and
one unavoidable fact of math is that it is thoroughly secular and godless.
It’s curious that while many complain about “godless evolution,” they
never seem to notice that the mathematical foundation of science is moreruthlessly godless than anything else in life. No equations and no
mathematical systems ever take anything religious into account,
including gods. Religion and gods couldn’t possibly be more irrelevant
to math.
The Values of Godless Science are the Values of the Enlightenment:
Modern science is largely an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, a
period when religious institutions and ecclesiastical authorities began toreally lose their power over every aspect of people’s lives. The
Enlightenment was thoroughly secular in that it did not derive its
impetus or principles from religious tradition or authority. The same is
true for science today, which has inherited the Enlightenment’s values of
skepticism, empiricism, and secularism.
Godless Science is Not a Religion:
The power of science’s secular and godless methodology may bewhy some try to deny that science is secular and godless in the first
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 9/29
place. This is curious, since the same people usually use secular and
godless as criticisms. If godless is a bad thing, and science is a threat,
why not draw attention to the fact that science is godless and deny the
value to science completely — unless the hope is to somehow preserve
all the benefits of science while abandoning what makes those benefitspossible.
Godless Science is More Reliable than Religion:
With its naturalistic, secular, and godless methodology, modern
science has produced incalculably more information about how our
world works and how to make it better for us in the past few hundred
years than all religious and theistic systems in the previous several
millennia. There are probably more people alive today than have beenkilled because of religion, which is quite a feat. The advantages of
godless science can hardly be measured.
Good Science is Naturalistic & Materialistic, Therefore Godless:
Because modern science is methodologically naturalistic and
materialistic, it never considers any supernatural explanations or sources
of evidence. This doesn’t mean that science necessarily denies the
possible existence of anything supernatural, it just means that nothingsupernatural plays any role in anything science does. This also means,
therefore, that gods do not and cannot play any role in anything science
does. A god does not have to be supernatural, but the sorts of gods
which might qualify as “natural” — like the ancient Greek deities —
don’t factor into anyone’s thinking anymore, whether scientific or
otherwise.
This godlessness of modern science bothers a lot of people for
whom God or gods play a fundamental role in all their decisions,assumptions, values, and general living. There are people for whom the
absence of gods is inconceivable, and thus the absence of gods in science
simply makes no sense. One means by which some try to sneak gods into
the scientific process is through “values,” because it is alleged that
science has no intrinsic values. This is false, but it is true that science
lacks many of the values traditionally ascribed to religion and doesn’t
make any value judgments about the use of scientific knowledge.
This isn’t an appropriate place to bring gods into the picture,though, because gods are as irrelevant to making value decisions about
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 10/29
science as they are to the scientific process itself. No gods and no
religions are the least bit necessary to determining whether certain
research programs should go forward, or if they do, what should be
done about the information discovered.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 11/29
Myth: Atheists Worship Science, Evolution
is Atheists' Creed, Darwin a Prophet
Atheists have Replaced God with Science, Religionwith Science
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Myth:
Atheists worship science. Technology is their church, evolution is their
creed, Darwin is their prophet, and scientists are their high priests.
Response:
Religious theists who believe that everyone worships something
and has some sort of religion will at times conclude that atheists' religion
must be science. Science is not only secular and godless, but has also
been responsible for overturning many of the myths, doctrines, and
beliefs which have been fundamental to theistic religions. Science
conflicts with religions not because it is a religion itself, but because
religions typically conflict with reality. No one worships science, though.Science is probably the most important and influential institution
in the modern world. Utilizing the scientific method, it has provided
humanity with more knowledge, more benefits, and more advantages
than anything else in the past — including religion. Given the degree to
which science structures out lives, our futures, and other social
institutions, it's perhaps not surprising that some religious theists would
come to see parallels between the two — even to the point where they
think that science is serving some or all of the same functions thatreligion does for them and used to do for all of society.
None of the above makes science a religion, though. Definitions of
religion are usually separated into two categories: substantive and
functional. The substantive definitions seek to identify some basic
"essence" that exists in every religions; common choices include belief in
gods or belief in something "sacred." Although these definitions always
rely on something that doesn't apply to some religions, none of them
describe any "essence" of religion that applies to science.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 12/29
Functional definitions of religion seek to identify the social,
political, or psychological functions which religions serve for human
beings. Common choices for this include providing social structure,
teaching morals, creating communities, etc. None of these really describe
science, either, though they can come somewhat close. Many of the socialinstitutions which do create social structure or create communities are
themselves heavily influenced by science. This isn't because science is
inherently religious, however, but because science in the modern world
cannot be ignored.
The idea that evolution is a "creed" for atheists and Charles Darwin
a "prophet" is based on the popular belief among conservative
evangelical Christians that evolution is anti-Christian and anti-God, even
though it's no more or less godless and secular than the rest of science.None of this is true, though. Atheists don't place any greater importance
on evolution than on other aspects of science; it's unlikely that atheists
would pay any special attention to evolution if it weren't for Christians
spending so much time and effort trying to undermine it in order to
promote their theological, political, and social agendas.
It is fair to say that atheists place a lot of trust and confidence in
science, but this isn't "faith" in the religious sense and how religious
theists typically use the concept. Atheists place their confidence inscience because it has repeatedly demonstrated how reliable it is. The
scientific method has proven to be an effective means for separating
truth from falsehood; during the relatively short period which science
has existed, it has accomplished far more than anything has — including
religions.
Modern science is largely an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, a
period when religious institutions and ecclesiastical authorities began to
really lose their power over most aspects of people’s lives. TheEnlightenment was thoroughly secular in that it did not derive its
impetus or principles from religious tradition or authority. The most
fundamental values of godless science are thus also the values of
modernity: skepticism, empiricism, and secularism. It’s not a coincidence
that science and modernity developed side-by-side: godless science has
reinforced secular modernity while secular modernity has provided the
atmosphere in which godless science could thrive.
What this means is that it isn’t possible to defend one without alsodefending the other. Secular modernity won’t be able to proceed very far
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 13/29
without the reinforcing support which godless science is able to provide;
godless science won’t be able to continue helping us understand the
world around us without the atmosphere created by secular modernity.
Not only do they need each other, but we need them as well: secular
modernity provides the freedom and room for people to follow theirconsciences and explore their religious beliefs; godless science has
become invaluable to our survival as a species.
Science is often maligned for being godless, but godlessness is
largely why science is successful: being godless means that science is not
beholden to any religious ideology or perspective. If it were, then it
wouldn’t be truly free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Science is
also often maligned for lacking values, but science has many values —
it’s just that they are values which are fundamental to our secular,godless modernity. It is this which most upsets critics because those
values are proving their superiority to the religious values which anti-
modern ideologues would rather promote.
These are all reasons to think highly of science and to try to protect
it from possible threats. None, however, are reasons to think that people
in any way "worship" science or treat it as a religion. It is even arguable
that science is less a belief system than a methodology: a method and
means for understanding what reality is rather than a set of doctrinesand dogmas which we are morally obligated to believe upon threat of
punishment.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 14/29
Science is Not a Religion: Why Science and
Scientific Research are not Religions
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Science, the Scientific Method, and Religion:
Calling science a religion should be instantly recognized as an
ideological attack rather than a neutral observation of facts. Sadly this is
not the case, and it has become far too common for critics of modern,
godless science to claim that it’s inherently a religion, thus hoping to
discredit scientific research when it contradicts genuine religious
ideology. Examining the characteristics which define religions as distinctfrom other types of belief systems reveals how wrong such claims are.
Belief in Supernatural Beings:
The most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is
belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods.
Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded
upon it. Does science involve belief in supernatural beings like gods? No
— many scientists are themselves theists and/or religious in variousways while many others are not. Science itself as a discipline and
profession is godless and secular, promoting no religious or theistic
beliefs.
Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and
times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the
existence of a supernatural realm. Many scientists, godless or not,probably have things, places, or times which they consider “sacred” in
the sense that they are venerated in some way. Does science itself
involve such a distinction? No — it neither encourages nor discourages
it. Some scientists may believe that some things are sacred, and others
won’t.
Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 15/29
If people believe in something sacred, they probably have rituals
associated with it which are also sacred. A scientist who holds something
as “sacred” may engage in some sort of ritual or ceremony. As with the
very existence of a category of “sacred” things, however, there is nothing
about science which either mandates such a belief or excludes it. Somescientist participate in rituals and some don’t; there are no scientific
rituals, godless or otherwise.
Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:
Most religions preach a moral code which is typically based upon
whatever transcendental and supernatural beliefs are fundamental to
that religion. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that
morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Scientists havepersonal moral codes which they may believe have supernatural origins,
but those are not an inherent part of science. Scientists also have
professional codes which have purely human origins.
Characteristically Religious Feelings:
Perhaps the vaguest characteristic of religion is the experience of
“religious feelings” like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even
guilt. Religions encourage such feelings, especially in the presence ofsacred objects and places, and the feelings are typically connected to the
presence of the supernatural. Most scientists experience such feelings;
often, it’s a reason why they got involved in science. Unlike religions,
however, these feelings have nothing to do with the supernatural.
Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:
Belief in supernatural beings like gods doesn’t get you very far if
you can’t communicate with them, so religions which include suchbeliefs naturally also teach how to talk to them — usually with some
form of prayer or other ritual. Most scientists believe in a god and
therefore probably pray; other scientists don’t. Because there is nothing
about science which encourages or discourages belief in the
supernatural, there is also nothing about it which deals with prayer.
A Worldview & Organization of One’s Life Based on the Worldview:
Religions constitute entire worldviews and teach people how tostructure their lives in relation to their worldview: how to relate to
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 16/29
others, what to expect from social relationships, how to behave, etc.
Scientists have worldviews, and there are common beliefs among
scientists in America, but science itself doesn’t quite amount to a
worldview. It provides a basis to a scientific worldview, but different
scientists will arrive at different conclusions and incorporate differentelements.
A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:
A few religious people follow their religions in isolated ways; more
often than not religions involve complex social organizations of believers
who join each other for worship, rituals, prayer, etc. Scientists belong to a
variety of groups, many of which will be scientific in nature, but not all
the same groups. What’s important, though, is the fact that even thesescientific groups are not “bound together” by all of the above. There is
nothing in science which is even remotely like a church.
Who Cares? Comparing and Contrasting Science & Religion:
Modern science is necessarily godless because godlessness
provides science with the independence of religious ideologies which is
necessary to ruthlessly pursue the facts wherever they may lead. Modern
science is successful precisely because it strives to be independent ofideology and bias, even if only imperfectly. Unfortunately, this
independence is also the primary reason for attacks on it. When it comes
to people who insist that their religious and theistic beliefs be
incorporated into every aspect of their lives, the absence of those beliefs
in others’ lives becomes almost incomprehensible.
In the case of science, it isn’t just a few lives which are godless, but
an entire field of study which is obviously fundamental to the modern
world. It’s difficult for some people to reconcile their own dependenceon the fruits of modern science with the fact that science is
methodologically naturalistic, secular, and godless. Because of this, some
people deny that science needs to be godless and insist that their
personal religious or theistic beliefs start to be incorporated into the
scientific process. That they would effectively kill the means by which
science is successful either isn’t recognized or doesn’t matter — it’s their
ideology which matters and of course serving the goal of spreading that
ideology far and wide.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 17/29
It is for this reason that attempts to label godless science as a
“religion” must not only be resisted, but outright rejected. The hope is
that if people perceive science as “just another religion,” then science’s
ideological independence will become forgotten, thus making it easier to
incorporate real religion into it. It’s strange that devout religiousfollowers would employ the “religion” label as an attack, but this merely
demonstrates their lack of principle and why they cannot be trusted.
Science doesn’t fit any scholarly definition of religion; portraying it as a
religion does, however, fit the ideological goals of anti-modern
ideologues.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 18/29
Einstein's Luck: The Truth behind Some of
the Greatest Scientific Discoveries
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
A common perception of science tends to focus upon a few great
figures who stand out from the crowd, leading their colleagues to new
frontiers of discovery through the brilliance of their insights and tenacity
of their research. Although this is surely sometimes the case, it is perhaps
less often the true than most people assume. Many of those “great
figures” are probably not so great as history and tradition typically
describe.
Summary
Title: Einstein's Luck: The Truth behind Some of the Greatest
Scientific Discoveries
Author: John Waller
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0198607199
Pro:• Very well written and engaging prose - suitable for both lay
readers and experts
• Highly informative on the history and philosophy of science
Con:
• None
Description:
• Explores myth and reality in the history of science
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 19/29
• Explains the difference between how science is done and the
ideals most people hold
• Exposes the truth behind many of the most important scientific
discoveries
Book Review
That is a basic lesson readers will derive from John Waller’s
recently published Einstein’s Luck: The Truth behind Some of the Greatest
Scientific Discoveries. A Research Fellow at the Wellcome Trust Centre for
the History of Medicine at University College London, Waller takes us
on an expansive tour of modern scientific research and discovery,
illuminating many dark passages and unpleasant situations where thepursuit of scientific truth has too often taken a back seat to self-
aggrandizement and the pursuit of fame.
“Until recent decades, the history of science was largely written by
those who wished to place their chosen subject in as favourable a light as
possible. The motivations were various. Sometimes they worked at the
behest of individual scientists who wanted to make sure that their part in
the great drama of discovery did not go unsung. In other cases, the key
requirement was a good story. More laudably generations of teachers of scientific subjects have wanted heroes for much he same reason that Livy
gave the Roman Horatio: to inspire by example.”
[...]
“Although the eventual outcome of a research programme may be a
fabulously rich collection of well-attested and highly predictive ideas, the
route to this happy state is often far more convoluted than subsequent
accounts will allow.”
Some potential readers might assume that Waller’s goal is to trash
science, but that would be a mistake. His agenda might be rather
iconclastic, but ultimately he hopes to get people to better understand
science as a very human process — and this means that science is often
plagued by all of the same flaws and problems that afflict human beings
and their other various endeavors, like politics or art.
Scientists are not dispassionate or disinterested observers. They
care deeply about the subjects they are investigating and nearly asdeeply about the theories they have for explaining the data they uncover.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 20/29
This is not a bad thing — after all, if it weren’t for that passion, no one
would care enough to do the work in the first place. As much as
anything else, science is driven by stubborn pigheadedness: a person or
persons who tenaciously cling to their theories and ideas, relentlessly
pursuing data and research in the hopes of coming across clues whichmight prove them right.
In the end, however, they still have to submit their data and ideas
to others for review. If the only support they end up producing is their
own faith, then their field will move on without them. If, however, their
stubborn tenacity has led them to interesting data that no one else has
come across, then they will be vindicated. Thus, no matter how dogmatic
an individual may be, the system itself tends to remain very undogmatic
and disinterested.What this means is that while the ends may look niceand neat, the actual process does not go along quite as scientists and
others imagine that it should.
The ideals of science may have value and they can serve to lead us
on the proper path, but it would be wrong to assume that reality very
often matches those ideas. This is demonstrated over and over as Waller
examines the actual historical record of numerous “luminaries” o f
science, researchers and scientists whose work is generally regarded
both inside and outside scientific circles as having revolutionized howwe live and/or how we view the world.
Included among those whose reputations and history are given a
closer look are Louis Pasteur (he suppressed data that didn’t fit his
ideas), Joseph Lister (who had a high rate of death due to unsanitary
conditions in his hospital wards), Arthur Eddington (who ignored two-
thirds of his data when testing Einstein’s theory of relat ivity), and
Alexander Fleming (who played almost no role in the development of
penicillin).Two topics covered in the book which might be of interest to
nonbelievers are the chapter on the famous debate between Thomas
Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, and the chapter on the
introduction of anaesthesia to women going through child labor. In both
cases, the common beliefs of not only atheists and skeptics but also
others in society are likely wrong.
With regards to the debate over evolution between Huxley and
Wilberforce that occurred in June, 1860, the most common belief seemsto be that Huxley wiped the floor with Wiberforce’s arguments, showing
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 21/29
his opposition to evolution as unthinking, unreasoned, and
unintellectual. The reality, however, may be quite different. There is
evidence that Huxley was not a very effective speaker, that Wilberforce
and his supporters walked away with the feeling that their ideas carried
the day, and that many who watched the debate or heard about it laterconcluded that Darwin’s ideas rested upon a shoddy foundation.
With regards to the use of anaesthesia in obstetrics, it is widely
believed that there were fierce religious objections to this on the grounds
that God had ordained in the Bible that women must endure pain when
delivering a child. Trying to relieve that pain was thus to be regarded as
a violation of God’s plan. But the evidence for such objections is lacking
to say the least. James Young Simpson wrote a response to such anti-
anaesthesia arguments, but it seems more likely that he was answeringhis own doubts and perhaps forestalling objections that might arise in
the future. But they never did and no one really cared.
The title of this book is misleading because there is very little about
Einstein in the whole work; aside from the Eddington experiments,
you’ll struggle to find any mention of the physicist who serves as an
example of how a scientist can experience brilliant insight about how the
world works. That aside, this is a wonderfully written book with very
readable and lively prose — its audience will be anyone from the curiouslay reader to research scientists who would like to go back and review
some of the faulty history of science they were once taught. Indeed, I
wouldn’t be surprised to see this put on the reading list for classes in the
History or Philosophy of Science.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 22/29
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 23/29
The problem here seems to me to lie in the failure to understand that we
have three prongs to deal with: science as an ideal, science as an
institution, and science as it is actually practiced by individual, working
scientists. Science as an ideal requires a willingness to question
assumptions and an open mind — it is, essentially, just as Carl Sagandescribed it. Science as an institution doesn’t actually achieve that ideal
but it probably comes about as close as any human institution can be
expected to. There are failures and flaws, to be sure, but all evidence
indicates that they are worked out in the long run.
Individual scientists, however, fall even farther short of the ideals.
In practice scientists are just as pig-headed and closed-minded as the
average human being. Moreover, science is not truly objective and
dispassionate when it comes to the individual scientists — after all, if itweren’t for passionate commitment to some idea or theory, many
scientists would probably find work in some better-paying field or
position. They do what they do because they love it; sometimes, though,
their passion can lead them to defend ideas which are past their prime.
So how does science as an institution come anywhere close to the
ideals of science when individual scientists fall so far short? Where the
ideal and practice meet can be found in the concept of peer review. In the
end, all scientists have to submit their data and ideas to others forreview. If the only support they end up producing is their own faith,
then their field will move on without them. If, however, their stubborn
tenacity has led them to interesting data that no one else has come
across, then they will be vindicated. Thus, no matter how dogmatic an
individual may be, the system itself tends to remain very undogmatic
and disinterested.
Other human institutions and endeavors are not incapable of
establishing the same sorts of standards and achieving the same sorts ofsuccess as science, but it will be difficult. Not all endeavors are
ultimately based upon the replication of hard data — and it is the data,
after all, which does the most to weed out the good ideas in science from
the bad. An even more common problem is the inability to genuinely
submit all positions to critical review.
Anyone who can decisively overturn an established theory in
science and set their field on an entirely new course will have an uphill
battle, but if successful their name will be listed among the greatestfigures in scientific history. In other arenas, like religion, such people
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 24/29
may forever be remembered as heretics and schismatics — if
remembered favorably, it will only ever be by their followers. Religion
doesn’t reward criticism and questioning like science does and that’s an
important difference.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 25/29
Baruch Spinoza on MiraclesIgnorance vs. Philosophy in the Study of Gods,
ReligionBy Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Do miracles exist? Religious believers certainly think that they do
and are rarely pleased when philosophers or scientists attempt to study
alleged miracles. The presumption is that while they exist, they must
nevertheless remain mysteries which people believe in based upon faith.
We are expected to accept on faith that apparent violations of natural
laws are the workings of some god.Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles, and to understand
the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in
astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and
proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of
nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put
aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by
which their authority is preserved.
-- Baruch Spinoza, Ethics (1677)There are many fronts on which science and religion conflict. It
may be true that many religious believers don't perceive the need for any
such conflict, but the reality is that the conflict exists — and in this
quotation, Spinoza seems to hit on one of the primary reasons why, a
reason that seems to apply across a broad range of individual debates
and problems.
For a long time people explained events in the world around them
through religion and religious mythology. Religion provided certaintyand stability in an uncertain world — and it also provided employment
to those who would be religious leaders, keepers of traditional wisdom
and beliefs. Empirical science, however, conflicts with this and causes no
end of problems for the structure of religious tradition.
Science provides far better explanations for natural events than
religion ever could, but at the same time it demonstrates that stability
and certainty are more illusory than real. Science, after all, doesn't give
us absolute and certain answers; instead, it gives us answers that are
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 26/29
probabilistic and should only be accepted so long as the evidence allows.
People who become scientists, who are willing to live with uncertainty,
and who want to understand the nature of reality even if that threatens
traditional religious beliefs, represent serious threats to religion and
religious leaders.Science also represents a deeper threat to religion because science
thrives on questioning assumptions and challenging institutionalized
beliefs. Religion, however, relies upon keeping people from doing that
too much. It's not as though religion dismisses all challenges and
questions, but it is the case that religion typically rejects the sorts of
challenges and methodologies fundamental to the scientific process. In
effect, a good scientist would have a great deal of difficulty in holding on
to a very traditional religious system unless they are able to socompletely compartmentalize the two that they never interact in a
significant way.
It is worth noting that Spinoza wrote the above in a book on ethics.
There is a strong argument for the idea that scientific principles aren't
just good science, but also good ethics as well. Don't we have some
ethical duty to seek out a greater understanding of reality using the best
tools available? Don't we have some ethical duty to the truth wherever it
may lie, even if the truth conflicts without beliefs, prejudices, traditions,and customs?
If any of this is the case, then religion and religious attitudes can
conflict with some of our ethical duties — duties to ourselves and our
need to better understand our world. Religious belief systems may claim
to put a high value on the truth, but typically only within the context of
certain religious dogmas that are supposed to be exempt from
questioning or challenges. You can't genuinely value truth and
skepticism if you exempt certain ideas from the truth-seeking processotherwise generally used.
Miracles may be pleasant to believe in, but miracles don't cure
diseases, don't clean up pollution, and don't provide the means for us to
live better lives. At most, belief in miracles provide a comforting
reassurance about the stability of a divinely-ordered universe in the face
of a very disordered human society, but that will only be appealing to
people who prefer comforting beliefs regardless of their logical or
empirical basis.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 27/29
Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Debates about the compatibility of science and religion are regular
features in academic discussions. On the one side we have those who
argue that there isn't any conflict, perhaps because the two deal with
different issues or because true religion is always in accordance with
reality as described by science. Others insist that religion and science
operate from fundamentally different methodologies and will inevitably
bump up against each other, usually with negative consequences.
Summary
Title: Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?
Author: edited by Paul Kurtz & Barry Karr
Publisher: Prometheus Books
ISBN: 1591020646
Pro:
• Many topics covered by many famous authors
I• mportant contribution to an important debate
Con:
• No index
Description:
• Essays addressing the question of whether science and religion
are compatible
• Most essays stem from a 2001 symposium on the topic
Book Review
For a long time, the dominant viewpoint at least among scientists
has been that science and religion are incompatible. In recent years the
opposite viewpoint has tended to be more popular and there has been
quite a lot of money available for scholars interested in arguing in favor
of the pro-compatibility position. Leading scientists continue to be
skeptical of this, often opposing the efforts of large religious foundationsto advance their agendas.
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 28/29
The recently published Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? is
an outgrowth of a “Science and Religion” symposium held in Atlanta in
2001. Edited by Paul Kurtz and Barry Karr, this book collects not only
papers that were delivered at that meeting, but also highly relevant
works that have appeared elsewhere. Contributors include Sir Arthur C.Clarke, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Kendrick Frazier, Martin
Gardner, Owen Gingerich, Stephen Jay Gould, James Lovelock, Steven
Pinker, Eugenie Scott, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Weinberg, and many
more.
A few of the authors defend the thesis that science and religion are
compatible — for example, we can read Stephen Jay Gould’s now-
famous essay “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” excerpted from his book
Leonardo’s Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms , in which he arguesthat science and religion can be compatible so long as they restrict
themselves to their proper and appropriate domains of inquiry.
Most authors, however, argue quite strongly that science and
religion are not compatible and that one or the other must give way. Paul
Kurtz expresses a common theme when he writes in his introduction:
“There is a profound difference between science and religion in its
conception of truth. Science requires an open mind, free inquiry, criticalthinking, the willingness to question assumptions, and peer review. The
test of a theory or hypothesis is independent (or at least one would hope)
of bias, prejudice, faith, or tradition; and it is justified by the evidence,
logical consistency, and mathematical coherence. Science claims to be
universal... transcending specific cultures and replicable in any and every
laboratory in the world.”
It is worth noting that while Kurtz correctly speaks of what science requires, he does not and cannot speak about what religion requires. It
would not be true that religion requires a closed mind, opposition to free
inquiry, and gullible thinking. In practice religion normally can be
characterized in that way, but it is not absolutely necessary in order to be
a religion.
The real problem between science and religion lies in the
comparison of science as an ideal and religion as it is practiced. Scienceas an ideal requires a willingness to question assumptions and an open
8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 29/29
mind, but in practice scientists are just as pig-headed and closed-minded
as the average human being. Science is not truly objective and
dispassionate when it comes to the individual scientists; where the ideal
and practice do meet, however, is when it comes to peer review.
In the end, all scientists have to submit their data and ideas toothers for review. If the only support they end up producing is their own
faith, then their field will move on without them. If, however, their
stubborn tenacity has led them to interesting data that no one else has
come across, then they will be vindicated. Thus, no matter how dogmatic
an individual may be, the system itself tends to remain very undogmatic
and disinterested.
When comparing science and religion, what should we place on
the side of science: the ideal or the reality? That’s a difficult question toanswer. The choice of the ideal is entirely reasonable, but there are good
arguments for picking the reality — that is, after all, the way actual
scientists go about their daily work. On the other hand, the ideals of
science are expressed a great deal in the overall structure of science, so
it’s not as though the ideal is just a dream.
And what do we place on the side of religion — ideal or reality? If
we are comparing the ideal of science, it seems unfair not to use the ideal
of religion. However, while we are able to identify some sort of scientificideal, there doesn’t appear to be any religious ideal. Every religion is
different, and even within religions there is extensive variation. All we
really have is the reality of religion — and that reality is very different
from not only the ideal of science, but also the reality.
This probably isn’t necessary. As stated above, it isn’t a
requirement of religion to be closed-minded, to avoid questioning
assumptions, and to reject peer review. It may be the norm, but it doesn’t
have to be. What this means is that whether religion and science arecompatible depends upon religious believers. If they submit their beliefs
to scientific standards of inquiry, then compatibility will exist.
Otherwise, it cannot.
Addressing topics such as intelligent design, creationism,
sociobiology, the nature of the soul, and near-death experiences, this is a
great collection of essays that anyone interested in this topic should read.
The articles are detailed without being dense, informative without being
dry.