Confrontation: Should there be a dialogue between science and religion?

By Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins *Two of science's most prominent speakers share their views on how scientists should treat religion and its believers

Editors' introduction

Although both authors represent the scientific side, they do not always agree among themselves about the best way to deal with threats, originating from religion, to the scientific activity or to the teaching of the sciences. Kraus, a leading physicist, often takes the public stage to advocate for keeping the theory of evolution in the school curriculum in the United States and removing various types of pseudoscientific creationism from it. An open letter he sent to Pope Benedict XVI in 16, in which he implores the head of the Catholic Church not to build new walls to separate science and faith, led the Vatican to reaffirm its agreement to consider natural selection a valid scientific theory.

Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, lecturer and prolific author, also eloquently criticizes any attempt to delve beneath the foundations of scientific thinking. But he generally shows less willingness than Krauss to achieve a peaceful coexistence between science and faith. It seems that the title of Dawkins' best-selling book "The Illusion of God" best sums up his view of religious faith.

These two allies exchanged impressions from the front during breaks at a conference devoted to discussing the clash between science and religion, held at the Salk Institute for Life Sciences in San Diego in late 2006. In the dialogue, which they reproduce here, the authors explained the methods they each employ to attack their opponents. , and faced some of the questions facing all scientists trying to decide whether and how to talk to believers about science: Is the goal to teach science or to undermine faith? Will the two worldviews ever be able to enrich each other? And is religion bad by its very nature?

Krauss: We both dedicated a significant part of our lives to getting people excited about science, while at the same time trying to explain the basics of the scientific understanding of the universe that each of us has. It therefore seems appropriate to ask what the overarching goals of a scientist should be when he talks or writes about religion. I am debating what is more important: using the contrast between science and religion to teach about science, or to put religion in its place? I suspect that I am more interested in focusing on the first issue, while you are more interested in focusing on the second.

I say this because if someone wants to teach people and entice them to think about science, it is clear to me that they need to reach out to them and understand the world of concepts from which they come. I often tell teachers that the biggest mistake they can make is presuming that their students are interested in what they have to say. The teaching is itself a temptation. On the other hand, if we tell people that their deepest beliefs are simply nonsense - even if they really are - and therefore they must listen to us if they want to learn the truth, then we will close the door on any future pedagogical move. It must be said, however, that if instead our overarching goal in discussing the issue is to place religion in its proper context, then it may be helpful to shock people into questioning their beliefs.

Dawkins: The fact that I think religion is bad science, while you think it is secondary to science, must tip us in different directions, at least somewhat. I agree that teaching is a temptation, and it may very well not be a good idea to antagonize your listeners before you've even begun. I may have room for improvement in my seduction methods. But no one appreciates a rogue seducer, and I wonder how far you are willing to go in your attempt to "reach out to them". Reason dictates that you should not try to reach out to a person who advocates the belief that the earth is flat. And maybe not even to a person who advocates creationism and believes that the earth is young, and that in fact the entire universe began after the Middle Stone Age. But you might try to reach out to the creationist who believes that the earth is ancient and believes that God started the whole thing and then intervened from time to time to help evolution overcome the difficult jumps. The difference between us is only quantitative. You're willing to reach a little farther than I am, but I suspect it's not much farther.

Kraus: Allow me to clarify what I mean by the words "to reach out". I don't intend to give in to misconceptions but to find a tempting way to show people that these perceptions are indeed mistaken. Let me give you one example. I have had the opportunity to debate both creationists and people who fanatically believe in aliens who have abducted humans. Both groups had misconceptions about the nature of explanation: in their sense, if you don't understand everything, you don't understand anything. In debates they make some vague claim, for example that in 1962 a certain group of people in Outer Mongolia saw a flying saucer hovering over a church. They ask me if I know this particular event, and if I answer in the negative, they always answer: "If you have not studied any event of this type, then you cannot claim that an abduction by aliens is improbable."

I found that I could make each of these groups think about what they were saying if I contrasted them with the other group. I mean, the creationists I ask, "Do you believe in flying saucers?" And they are forced to say "no". Then I ask, "Why? Have you studied all the claims?" Similarly, I ask those who believe in alien abductions, "Do you believe in creationism that holds that the earth is young?" And they say "no," because they want to leave a scientific impression. Then I ask, "Why? Have you studied all the counterclaims?" The point I want to make for each group is that it makes a lot of sense to base theoretical expectations on a huge amount of existing evidence, even without studying every vague counter-argument. Such a "learning" method worked in most cases, except for the cases where I argued with a believer in abductions by aliens who was also their creator!

Dawkins: I liked the clarification of your intention with the words "to reach out". But let me warn you about how easily people misinterpret what you mean. I once wrote in a New York Times book review that "it is safe to say that if you meet a person who claims to not accept evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or evil, but I prefer not to consider this possibility)." This sentence has been cited over and over again as proof that I am an unbridled brawler, opaque, intolerant and bigoted. But just look at my sentence. It may not be worded very seductively, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact.

Ignorance is not a crime. Calling someone "ignorant" is not an insult. We are all ignorant of most knowable subjects. I'm totally ignorant when it comes to baseball, and I daresay you're totally ignorant when it comes to cricket. If I say to a person who believes that the world is 6,000 years old that he is ignorant, I am actually paying him a compliment because I do not assume that he is stupid, crazy or evil.

Krauss: I have to say that I completely agree with you on this point. For me, ignorance is usually the problem, and happily it's very easy to treat. If I claim that a person who does not properly understand scientific issues is ignorant, this is no disrespect.

Dawkins: For that, I'm happy to agree with you that I could, and perhaps should have, worded it more carefully. I should have reached out a more tempting hand. But there are limits. You will probably stop short of this extreme: "Dear creationist who believes that the earth is young, I deeply appreciate your belief that the world is 6,000 years old. However, let me gently and humbly hint that if you tried to read a book about geology, radioisotope dating, cosmology, archaeology, history or zoology you might find the books charming (as a supplement to the Bible, of course), and you might that you can begin to understand why almost all educated people, including theologians, believe that the age of the world is measured in billions of years, and not in thousands."

Allow me to suggest another method of seduction. Instead of pretending to respect dumb opinions, how about some tough love? Dramatically present to the creationist who believes that the earth is young the enormous size of the gap between his belief and the belief of the scientists: "6,000 years are not just slightly different from 4.6 billion. They are so different, dear creations, that it is as if you would claim that the distance between New York and San Francisco is not 5,400 kilometers, but only 7.1 meters. Of course I respect your right to disagree with scientists, but you may not be offended or hurt if I explain to you - using an unassailable arithmetical key - the very magnitude of the controversy that you have taken on your shoulders."

Krauss: I don't think your proposal amounts to "tough love." In fact, this is exactly the method I advocate, that is, a creative and seductive method of getting people to digest the magnitude and nature of such misconceptions. There are people who will always cling to their blatantly wrong perception, despite the facts, but these are certainly not the people we are trying to reach out to. We are trying to reach out to that huge part of the public that can approach science with an open mind but simply doesn't know enough about it or has never been exposed to scientific proof. In this context, allow me to present another question, which may arouse even more intense feelings in you: can science enrich faith, or must it always destroy it?

This question came to me because not long ago I was asked to speak at a symposium on science and religion held at a Catholic college. I guess I was seen as someone trying to reconcile the two. After I agreed to lecture, I discovered that the title "Science enriches faith" was attached to my lecture. Despite the discomfort I felt at first, the more I thought about the title the more logic I found in it. The need to believe in a supreme being without direct evidence is, for better or for worse, a fundamental component of the psyche of many people. I don't think we will get humanity rid of religious belief any more than we will get rid of romantic love or any other fundamental but irrational aspect of human consciousness. Although they are not consistent with the rational components of science, they are no less real and perhaps no less deserving of a certain appreciation as far as our humanity is concerned.

Dawkins: As a side note, such pessimism about humanity is common among rationalists and sometimes borders on downright masochism. It's almost as if you and others at the conference where this dialogue began are simply reveling in the idea that humanity is doomed to ignorance. But in my opinion there is no connection between irrationality and romantic love or poetry or emotions that are so close to what gives life value. They do not contradict rationality. Maybe they touch her. Anyway, I'm all for them, just like you. Clearly irrational beliefs and superstitions are another matter entirely. Accepting the fact that we can never get rid of them - that they are an inevitable part of human nature - is something that is clearly not true for you and, if I may guess, for most of your colleagues and friends. If so, isn't it condescending to assume that humans are unable to get rid of them by their very definition as human?

Krauss: I'm not so sure I've gotten rid of irrational beliefs, at least not when it comes to irrational beliefs about myself. But if religious belief is a central part of many people's life experience, the question, it seems to me, is not how we can help the world rid itself of God, but how much science can moderate, at least, that belief and curtail the most irrational and harmful aspects of religious fanaticism . There is no doubt that this is one way in which science can enrich faith.

For example, in my lecture before the Catholic group, I described, inspired by your last book, how scientific principles, including the claim to avoid being picky in the selection of data, dictate to us that a person cannot choose and clarify at will different foundations from a fundamentalist world. If someone believes that homosexuality is an abomination because it is written in the Bible, he must also agree with the other things written in the Bible, including the permission to kill your children if they are disobedient and teachers or the approval of the right to sleep with your father if you have no children and there is no other man around, and further.

Furthermore, science can reveal the truth behind many more such destructive literal interpretations of scriptures, including for example the concept that women are chattels and nothing else, a concept that is contrary to what biology teaches us about the biological roles of females and in particular about the intellectual skills of women and men. According to the line taken by Galileo when he claimed that humans would not have received intelligence from God if "he" had not intended for us to use it to learn about nature, it can therefore be said that in this way science can certainly enrich faith.
Another advantage of science was very convincingly presented by Carl Sagan, who, like you and I, was not a believer. In any case, after his death he saw in light a collection of lectures on science and religion that Sagan gave in 1985 in Scotland. In this file he claims that the standard religious enthusiasm is actually too narrow-minded and too limited. A single world is too inferior for a true god. The vast dimensions of the universe, revealed to us through science, are much more impressive. Furthermore, we can now add, according to the latest fashion in theoretical physics, that a single universe can also be too inferior, and that it might be worth starting to think in terms of a collection of universes. However, I feel the need to emphasize that enriching belief is very different from providing evidence to support belief, which I believe science certainly does not do.

Dawkins: Yes, I love that sentimentality of Sagan's, and I'm glad you chose to talk about it. I summarized it for the publishers of the collection of lectures you mentioned on the back cover of the book: "Was Sagan a religious person? He was so much more than that. He left behind him the medieval, narrow-minded and miserable world of the average religious person; He left the theologians, pastors, and mullahs who wallow in their petty spiritual poverty. He left them behind, because his religion was about much, much more than that. Leave them their Bronze Age myths, medieval superstitions and false hopes to which they cling as children. Sagan had the entire universe.” I don't think I have anything to add in response to your question about whether science can enrich faith. He can, in the sense you and Sagan mean. But I really don't want them to mistakenly understand that I gave faith a goshpanka.

Krauss: I would like to conclude with an issue that I think is central to much of the prevailing debate between scientists regarding religion: Is religion inherently bad? I'll admit here that my views have evolved over the years, though you might argue that I've simply mellowed. There is certainly plenty of evidence that religion is responsible for many atrocities, and I have often said, as you have, that no one would deliberately fly planes into tall buildings unless they were sure God was on their side.

As a scientist, I feel it is my job to voice opposition when religious belief causes people to teach lies about the world. In this regard, I will argue that religious sensitivities should be respected no less and no more than any other metaphysical inclination, but in particular they should not be respected when they are wrong. When I say false I mean beliefs that clearly contradict empirical evidence. The land is not 6,000 years old. The sun did not stand still in the sky. The man from Kennewick was not a Umatilla Indian. The thing we should try to eradicate is not religious belief, but ignorance. Belief becomes an enemy only when knowledge threatens it.

Dawkins: I think we're pretty much in agreement on that point. Even though the word "lie" is too harsh in this context, because it implies deliberate deception, I am not one of those who place moral reasoning above the question of the truth of religious beliefs. Not long ago I participated in a televised meeting with retired British politician Tony Benn, former Minister of Technology, who defines himself as a Christian. In the course of our discussion it became beyond doubt that he had no interest in whether Christian beliefs were true or not; It was important to him to find out only if they were moral. He opposed science on the basis of the fact that it does not provide moral guidance. When I protested against him and argued that moral guidance does not belong to science at all, he almost asked me what value science has at all. A classic example of the "belief in belief" syndrome, as the philosopher Daniel Dennett called it.

As other examples we can bring people who believe that the question of whether religious beliefs are true or not is less important than the power of religion to give comfort and purpose to life. I imagine you will agree with me that we are not at all opposed to people drawing comfort from what they want and are not at all opposed to strong moral compasses. But we must separate the question of the moral or encouraging value of religion - one way or the other - and the question of the truth value of religion. I am used to encountering difficulties in convincing religious people of this diagnosis, and from this I conclude that we, the seducers of science, are facing an arduous struggle.

About the author Lawrence M. Krause

Lawrence M. Krause holds the Ambrose Savassi Chair and directs the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University. He is the author of seven popular books and has served as a commentator in dozens of radio, television programs and various publications of the country. He also lectures in many places on science and public policy. Among his other marks of scientific distinction is his being the only one to have won the most important awards from each of the three American Physical Societies. In his free time he performed the piece "The Planets" with the Cleveland Orchestra, served as a judge at the Sundance Film Festival and wrote four articles for Scientific American.

About the author Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins now holds the Charles Simoni Chair at Oxford University whose aim is to instill in the public the understanding of science. His nine books earned him honorary doctorates in literature and science, and he is a member of the British Royal Society and the British Royal Literary Society. His many awards include the International Cosmos Prize, the Nakayama Humanities Prize and the Shakespeare Prize for Outstanding Contributions to British Culture. In 2006 he founded the Richard Dawkins Institute for Science and Logic. New guidelines in UK schools are encouraging pupils to play the roles of figures such as Galileo, Darwin and Dawkins as they debate science and creationism.

A battlefield of beliefs

A survey conducted in 2005 among the members of the National Union of Science Teachers in the USA found that:

· 30% said they feel pressured to omit evolution from their lessons
· 31% said they feel pressured to include unscientific alternatives to evolution in their classes

In the religion survey conducted by Baylor University in 2006 among 1,721 American graduates it was found that:
· 69% thought that holding prayers in schools should be allowed
· 25% thought that some UFO sightings were probably spaceships from other worlds
· 88% opposed the idea that God favors a particular political party
· 69% opposed the idea that God favors the USA in carnal matters

In a poll conducted by Newsweek in 2007 among 1,004 American graduates it was found that:
· 48% thought that God created humans in their current form at some point during the last 10,000 years
· 30% thought that humans evolved from simpler forms of life, guided by God
· 48% thought the theory of evolution was well supported by the evidence, but 39% thought it was not

And more on the subject
Unweaving the Rainbow. Richard Dawkins. Houghton Mifflin, 1998.
Translated into Hebrew as "Unraveling the Rainbow", Richard Dawkins, Maariv Publishing, 2001
Questions That Plague Physics. Lawrence M. Krauss and Claudia Driefus in Scientific American, Vol. 291, no. 2, pages 82–85; August 2004.

The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins. Houghton Mifflin, 2006

"The Illusion of God" (tentative name), by Richard Dawkins, now translated into Hebrew for Attic Books
Hiding in the Mirror: The Quest for Alternate Realities, from Plato to String Theory. Lawrence M. Krauss. penguin,

2006

Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival conference videos and background

The official website of Richard Dawkins

Home page of Lawrence M. Krauss

Recommend the article