I am probably not a bus
The estimable Mr Edward Leigh MP wrote a fascinating article for Platform today, in which he describes science or secularism as the Paradigm of Certainty, a paradigm whose approach, he claims is: if we cannot prove something scientifically, it is not truth.
This is, of course, nonsense, and Mr Leigh is far too intelligent to believe it, though it is one of the typical claims made by the antiscientific who seek to make religious belief a central tenet of public life. Science is fine, they say, for those test-tubey things, or for, like, making medicine or bombs or whatever, but when it comes to like the real stuff, the deep stuff, the what-it-is-to-be-human stuff, science is inadequate, and we have to give over to religion (typically 'my religion', but this isn't the place to list the contradictions between these competing theories, all of which claim universal application).
Scientific discourse is not a solid set of practice; there are different schools in the philosophy of science. But none of them - none of them - make the claim to provide certainty, about (almost) any theory (see below), and nor do they ascribe impossibility to something which cannot currently be tested (I'm writing this in Italy so I'm even more aware than normal that the root of the word 'to prove' means the same as to test or to try: provare, to try, in Italian). To an atheist, it feels much more as though religious people are the ones who lay claim to certainties ("I don't know you; of course, ultimately, I cannot know you, but I know you are sinful", or "When I die I will come back to life, somehow", or "God is love").
Of course there are some rare things - theories - hypotheses - which are falsifiable ("All swans are black"), and they are to be welcomed, because there's enough stuff we can't know and other stuff we don't know without trying to ascribe uncertainty to those few things which are so certain as to be capable of carrying the practical labels "true" or "false". But the scientific method is not only built around falsificationism, pace Karl Popper; it is not an empirical extension of the deductive logic of mathematics. Inductive reasoning (the Bayesian scientific method) can be quite different.
You have a theory, H. You gather some evidence, e. You use e to appraise what has happened to your belief or faith or otherwise in H. If Pr(H given e) gets tiny, then it's hard to continue to believe in H, and normally one would discard H or seek to augment it or at least downweight its practical application. But that's not the same as saying Pr(H) = zero. This is the scientific method.
The difference between science and religion is that the latter has a set of hypotheses H in whose veracity its adherents are completely unwilling to permit any modulation of belief. In fact that is my definition of religious belief: a refusal to permit modulation of belief in a set of hypotheses, regardless of any (thought experiment) evidence which could be produced. For suppose such evidence could be produced, such that Pr(H given e) -> zero; the religious adherent would continue to insist that Pr(H) = 1. Not ~1, but =1. No e could be imagined which would change this. In Bayesian terms, their prior belief in H concentrates all its mass on the point of unity; no data could move it from there.
This is not a philosophy of "truth", as Mr Garnier claims. It's a philosophy of hope, perhaps. But not truth, not evidence, not demonstration, not method; you can't touch it, you can't see it, you can't experience it (anymore than you can experience how someone else falls in love or sees the colour red) - faith is not some other dimension of life, which clumsy science fails to appreciate. Science understands completely how to use evidence to modulate belief, and the probability calculus even tells us how to combine beliefs in the absence of any evidence. Religion is a refutation of all this. That I can't prove your God doesn't exist is neither here nor there: you have no evidence that He does and therefore no way to modulate my valid belief that He probably does not. I am glad for you (honestly; and I nearly didn't write this because the last thing I want to do is cause offence). But real people who exist - even their words - should have more power in the universe than a common imagining. That the common imagining is used as an excuse to change the outcomes for the real people who exist is when I stop finding the whole thing an intellectually fascinating passtime.
Apologies for mixing up the estimable MPs with first name "Edward" towards the end!
Posted by: Graeme Archer | April 01, 2009 at 20:43
Graeme, two years ago I would have vociferously agreed with you. Today my issue is that I don’t think it’s fair to undermine religion without providing an alternative that serves the same purpose.
For example, my aunt is very religious. Were she to lose a child, her religion would give her the strength to cope. Although, intellectually, I consider her religion to be a prop, I don’t think it’s fair of me to remove that prop, that strength, unless I intend to bridge the gap. I’m afraid I’m not a big enough person to do that.
Although I’m reducing religion to a coping mechanism, and that, in itself, could be offensive, my change in heart over the last two years is to understand that we all have coping mechanisms. Mine are simply more rational, to me.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | April 01, 2009 at 20:48
Mark, you make some typically very good points, and I should probably have stopped at my defence of the scientific method, without venturing into comment on religion. But you ask me a question so I will try and answer.
In fact, nearly everything I post on CentreRight contains an expression of what I believe is the answer, my suggested substitute for religious thought for those who cannot know God. It is: love. Just love as hard and as relentlessly and as fiercely and as universally as you can. In my case, this works best locally, I love best those objects (including human beings) I can see and touch and know. I think there are consequences of this, not all of which either lack political consequence or are disadvantageous to a community. I may be veering into a humanist version of red-Toryism here, I'm not sure.
I know that many religious people would say I am exhibiting a pathological failure of psychology: that what I call love is some sort of humanist perversion of God. But I don't think so. I am boringly and unfashionably logically positivist: I know I exist and I know that I love. That's enough.
Of course I also hold the unpopular view that it is not always wrong to be nice rather than good, and this is dangerous for me, because it might bring me into conflict with the views of Iris Murdoch, whom I revere. And she was most definitely not wrong when she said: in the end all our failures are failures of love. This, at least, I hold to be universally true, whether you know God or do not. This might be your 'practical substitute'. I think.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | April 01, 2009 at 21:17
Dear Greame,
I too am an atheist and happy to "come out" as such.
But the Tory party is packed with fogey sentimental religious types. To quote Samual Butler: "They would [be] equally horrified at hearing the Christian religion doubted, and at seeing it practised."
Moreover, Leigh and Garnier, and others, make the simple mistake of thinking science is as woolly as their religion. In fact, hard and critical evidence-based approaches explain almost all the public health and technological advances of the last hundred or so years.
Many Tories just do not "get" a secular society, in the same way they do not really "get" human rights (and before Thatcher/Joseph, they did not "get" free markets). As Mill said, they are the stupid party. Indeed, there is a certain pride some Tories have in putting forward arguments which they must know are misconceived. (You can usually tell when they do this, as they then exclaim "Sound!" to over compensate.)
However, against such a trait, English society is becoming more secular, and people are less at ease with having religion being used to justify policy positons. The Tories, being rightly wedded to Rab Butler's Art of the Possible, will of course adapt, and the Tory Fogey will become as extraordinary figure as a bishop in a wig.
Religion will move, correctly, to the private realm. For, as Disraeli observed, all sensible men do have the same religion; sensible men do not tell.
So, to adapt the Bus slogan, there is probably no God; so stop worrying and get on with campaigning...
Best wishes,
Jack
Posted by: Jack of Kent | April 01, 2009 at 21:23
Great article Graeme.
Posted by: Doug | April 01, 2009 at 21:39
religion sucks.
Posted by: Andrew S | April 01, 2009 at 21:58
"Many Tories just do not get a 'secular' society" - blimey, talk about a nonsensical sweeping statement.
I'm amazed Jack of Kent forgot to add that all Tory females rinse their hair blue and then put floral hats on top.
Posted by: sjm | April 01, 2009 at 22:15
I think its perfectly legitimate to make comparisons with people of religion Graeme if you could've been more circumspect and objective with your feelings. I have a problem starting this discussion using the rigid attitude of a die-hard secularist to make your point about the "typical" religious (which I am not) :)
"Science understands completely how to use evidence to modulate belief, and the probability calculus even tells us how to combine beliefs in the absence of any evidence. Religion is a refutation of all this."
To me that reveals your faith. I agree evidence can be used to modulate belief, that's the strength of science, but also its weakness. The problem is it can be modulated for self-interest just like those of religious persuasion who refute all or some and it can be just some.
Our Supreme Court way back defined Humanism as a religion. Starting from self and ending with self. I believe the pillar of its basis for knowledge is science. Its support for scientific skepticism and method is vital to its basis for knowledge concerning what is. For many science is God, to be your own god so to speak. But, science is directly associated with the scientific community and not necessarily with proven truth. I think we all can agree political/philosophical/ideological agenda has played a significant role.
Just a few points...
Global warming is considered scientific fact by many. Yet many have even cited Gore's book. Many were on the band wagon too in the 70s claiming the dawn of an ice age.
Endless false health claims.
Even the history of Evolution has huge false claims and distortions, and why? This is really no different than a 6000 year old creation.
I don't dispute your feeling out of place within the Tory party. "I may be veering into a humanist version of red-Toryism here, I'm not sure." I think that's probably true, but do you have to be a Tory and belong to love yourself? If being nice includes genuine respect you'll always belong. I question if that's for you.
Posted by: Steevo | April 01, 2009 at 23:28
I feel a little sorry for those who only believe what science tells them absolutely must be true.
My own observations of life lead me to believe in something more. Nothing in my Christian belief causes any problem with my scientific knowledge, which is reasonably thorough.
As for not "getting" a secular society, that's wrong. I get it all too well. I just don't think it's the good thing some of you have it chalked up to be. But I certainly wouldn't get on my soap box and shout about it. Who'd listen? It will all come out in the wash, sooner or later.
As for "not being a bus", you are correct to use the word 'probably'. Indeed, you have no way to absolutely prove you are not a bus scientifically. You can't prove anything, you can just build a substantial amount of evidence and make a supposition based on that. Which makes the argument for and against science fairly eloquently all on its own.
Don't get me wrong, I love science. Ignoring evidence in favour of belief is not a clever route to take. But humanity is more than a formula or a set of theories and when you try to denigrate it to that, you can do harm.
Posted by: Steve Tierney | April 01, 2009 at 23:45
Why am I not surprised. Another "loose stool" voided by Graeme.
Posted by: Steve Foley | April 02, 2009 at 00:08
"But none of them - none of them - make the claim to provide certainty, about (almost) any theory".
Unfortunately not true. Scientists would like us all to think that this is how they behave, but in many areas it is simply not the case. Take climate change. The evidence that climate changes over time is undeniable. The evidence that it has changed in unusual fashion over the past century is rather weaker. The evidence that it has changed due to human activity weaker still. Yet to point this out in public is to risk being deluged with criticism and insults. Those scientists fully signed up to anthropogenic global warming theory will not tolerate it being questioned. There are many other areas were the scientific community as a whole has made up its mind as to what truth is and will not allow this to be questioned. The scientific community as a whole needs to recognise its own faults in this respect before firing off against religion (or anything else for that matter). Mote, beam, eye.
Posted by: Rupert Matthews | April 02, 2009 at 07:25
Graeme - I struggle to reconcile your support for Popperian falsificationism with your claim to support the verificationism central to logical positivism.
Rupert - you need to distinguish "science" from the behaviour of some scientists. Just as it would be unfair to define religion by the worst of the religious. The IPCC is a political body, behaving in a political way, some of whose members happen to be scientists. The politicization of the science here (both ways) is a big concern.
Steve - thankyou for the sensible observation that Christians need not find any conflict with reality/science; too many it seems do. It is also regrettable that it is left to the scientists to resist this, whereas really it should be the sensible religious who should be making this point. Where are the bishops condemning brain-dead creationism rather than excessive shopping?
Posted by: David Bouvier | April 02, 2009 at 09:33
Too many issues raised for a comprehensive response but here are a random few for further thought.
Our Science largely grew out of the religious impulse to understand God whose nature was displayed in both Scripture and Nature. Theologians and Scientists are twin children born of the questions "what is?" and "what ought".
It is as much a mistake to think you have pinned down "Religion" as "Science". Both mutate. Not for nothing did Jesus' early disciples describe themselves as followers of "The Way". Thomas Acquinas has as many similarities and differences with Rowan Wiliams as Issac Newton with Stephen Hawking.
Human Rights lawyers (and their detachment from Justice) are what you get when you remove God from a theologian's moral compass!
Whilst the two disciplines take different routes, they bisect with interesting results. Thus, only 50 years ago, the idea of a moment of Creation out of nothing was dismissed as utter superstitious nonsense until the observations of Edwin Hubble confirmed the expanding Universe and led ultimately to the Big Bang Theory. This has now restored to intellectual respectability the absurdly "unscientific" and counter intuitive idea of matter, and all the laws of physics,( logic) coming into being from nothing,in an instant. How remarkable that the Bible begins with the scientific truth "In the beginning was the Word"( Logos).
It is as if after many years hard climb the scientists arrived at their destination and climbed over the final crah of the mountian top to find a group of theologians who had been patiently waitng for them for several hundred years!
The determined secular materialists are currently busy working on their equations to find a different explanation by including such abstract concepts as the "multiverse" and "imaginary time". They may achieve their objective, but at a paradoxical price. That the theory does not work when you apply real data to it.
We are currently at the point where the idea of " God of the first cause" fits what is currently known scientifically and God can only not exist in an imaginary theory totally divorced from the real world.
Its all very puzzling!
I hope however that even those who are not yet ready to make further enquiry into religious thought might however be given slight pause to reflect that those of us who take these maters seriously are not infantile simpletons but do engage with complexity in all its forms, scientific as well as moral and theological
Posted by: martin sewell | April 02, 2009 at 09:57
'real people who exist - even their words - should have more power in the universe than a common imagining'
Should they ? Doesn't the history of the 20th Century tell us that when power is seized by real people (Hitler, Stalin, Mao)whose words are regarded as absolute truth by their followers, this can have a far more harmful effect on society than any religion ? Surely the reason that religious ideas and thoughts can carry so much impact is precisely the failure of merely secular philosophies and ideas to answer the deepest questions.
Scientists don't 'make the claim to provide certainty' ? There seems to be precious little evidence of this among the climate change and anti-creationist zealots.
And I'm not sure why anyone should think that 'religious people are the ones who lay claim to certainties'. Faith is 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'(Hebrews 11.1). Most mature religious believers would never claim to have reached a full and perfect understanding of their faith, and are always open to new insights and revelations, which cannot always be said of scientists and politicians.
Posted by: johnC | April 02, 2009 at 14:23
David Bouvier at 09:33
>>Where are the bishops condemning brain-dead creationism rather than excessive shopping?<<
The church is changing, but has its own internal politics. I think many practising Christians are less blinkered than the media would have everybody believe.
Without wanting to get into a huge complicated (and flamey) debate with everybody I'd just make a few quick points.
If you ask a Physicist to describe the Big Bang in laymans terms, then ask a Christian to describe God's creation of the universe in layman's terms, you get a very similar description from both. Science and Christianity do not need to fight. They just use different terms to describe the same thing.
Some of the stories from the bible are so strange and so alien to our current understand of what is possible that they sound like 'magic' to us.
When you study physics (and particularly Quantum Physics) many of the current theories are so strange and so alien that they sound like magic when described in layman's terms.
Anyway, I should probably shut up now.
Posted by: Steve Tierney | April 02, 2009 at 14:58
Steve,
Don't feel obliged to "shut up" if you need to respond! We shall absolve you from your vow of silence in the interests of fair play.
I just want to challenge you to be less dogmatic over creationism simply because some of the new thinking - and the questions it raises - are science based and raise serious questions. Michael Behe and Stephen Meyers may be right, they may be wrong, but they are serious thinkers and should not be dismissed without respectful consideration.
As I indicated previously, those who asserted a moment of creation were thought ludicrous - until they were found to be unfashionably right.
It may also help to state that the Bible and its stories need to be read not as a book but as a library with a whole variety of aproaches. You might even prefer to think in terms of Wikipedia given that there are over 1000 contributing "voices" to the overall shape, though its believers would say only one inspiration. Equally Shakespeare sounds a bit odd in the ears of today, but I am comfortable to be "judgemental" and to assert it is "better" and more "relevant" than much that it written today.
Posted by: martin sewell | April 02, 2009 at 16:10
David Bouvier -- I don't subscribe to Popper, or his inductive corollaries, Fisher and Neyman-Pearson, at all, but I'm only a cat glancing up at kings! I thought I should mention it since falsification is what most people (I think) believe to be the beginning and end of 'the method'.
johnC, I think the examples you quote are actually proof that words are indeed real things in the universe. Their moral worth is in the intent of the speaker. I don't disagree with you much at all. I do disagree though that naming unpleasant individuals who lacked God is a proof of God's necessity; or that people without God cannot have a good heart.
I did note - lots of people are conflating unscientific subscription to climate change with the scientific method as applied to the measurement of putative climate change. The mindless mantras of climate change annoy me as much as they do you. This doesn't mean I disbelieve in climate change as a theory or even a possibility, man-made or otherwise. This is quite a good example of Bayesian reasoning actually. If you think that climate change believers are ignoring evidence, then Bayesian reasoning supplies you with a mechanism for demonstrating their irrationality. If you have the evidence. Which seems like a good idea to me for doing the experiments, as far as an experiment is possible with regards to climatology.
martin sewell wrote those of us who take these maters seriously are not infantile simpletons but do engage with complexity in all its forms. Of course I know you do Martin, and if I made you think otherwise, then I apologise. Even if you had not written this, your many comments which I've read on other threads are proof of it. Complexity is something to be welcomed, I think, as I think you do too. I do distrust on sight anyone who lays claim to a 'bigger picture'. I wrote about that once I think. I detest the concept. Where you and I would disagree (I'm guessing) is that I don't think there's any such thing as a 'bigger picture': there's just this, in front of us. It's enough. Excuse the vanity but I've gone and looked it up, and I think it's a much better posting than this one: here it is. Forgive me for this Martin, but I hope it makes you smile: I can't remember who said it, but I did read once someone describe theological debate as 'tennis without the net' :-)
Thanks all for the typically warm responses. It's pretty obvious, I'm sure, that I was thinking out loud when I composed this one, and it's nice when people enter into a conversation about it. Many of you have made me think. You can't ask much more from a website community, can you. A presto amici.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | April 02, 2009 at 21:22
Thanks for your thoughts Graeme,I read your earlier piece and, though I am not a fan of the SIstine Chapel ( did' t Pope Julius exclaim "it's all arses!") :-) anyone who can reflect seriously upon it as you have, may be less of an atheist than they think!
One of the serious problems is that so many of the early attempts to explain the transittion between the old and new testaments or "what Christians believe" require cultural/ historical knowledge ( eg about the gnostic and Arian controversies) which few have today.
For this reason, and in keeping with your suggestion that religion ought to be more reticent about the things unknown and unseen, I draw to your attention an interesting "theology - lite" creed devised by the much maligned David Jemkins ex-Bishop of Durham.
"God is, He is as He is in Jesus Christ, so there is hope."
I suspect that we might agree that where dogma is concerned, less is sometimes more
Posted by: Martin Sewell | April 02, 2009 at 23:21