Thanks for writing about my essay, but I think you missed one of my most important points. I wrote, for example:

“Scientific investigation is a process that depends upon hypothesis testing and demands that scientific claims be offered in a manner that permits them to be falsified. Simply put, if you can’t phrase your hypothesis in a falsifiable manner, it falls outside the bounds of science. Science is, therefore, one of the few fields of human endeavor that has opted to limit its own scope — and it’s that limitation that makes it so useful….When religion (or more likely its fundamentalist adherents) begins to make claims in the complete absence of evidence and in a manner that is not falsifiable, and when those claims are passed off as scientific, the record must be set straight.”

But I also went on to note that many, many in religion do not believe that their faith requires them to make such truth claims. Instead, they are fully comfortable with the findings of science and feel that their religion is about something else. I said, “Instead, the overwhelming majority of the religious leaders with whom I interact regularly believe that religion is about morality and spirituality rather than science. They want to make the world a better, a fairer and a more just place and they believe they can accomplish that within a spiritual community.”

This statement doesn’t come close to saying that religion should have the sole say in issues of morality, spirituality or justice - only that some people who are not scientists might have something to add to these important conversations.

Similarly, I mentioned that while science might have little to say about aesthetics, that doesn’t mean it is unimportant. Although you are absolutely correct that science is helping us to understand a good deal about the nature of aesthetics, I don’t believe that the goal is to explain away individual choice. Why do some like Bach while others like Beethoven? That, to me, is a personal choice that falls outside the reach of science - even as science might well be able to explain what happens in our brains as we listen to music.

Please understand that I am in no way attempting to privilege religion - all I am saying is that there are some fields that fall outside the bounds of science. It makes little sense to me to attack those field or, more to the point, adherents of those fields when they are not making scientific claims. If and when they step over the line and begin to make scientific claims without using the scientific method, have at them - and I’ll be there with you.

There have been some who argue that everything is open to scientific investigation and thus the only “correct” position is that any opinion that is not “scientific” should be ignored. To me, that represents a complete misunderstanding of science and greatly limits our human potential. And I say this not thinking about religion at all but rather about various forms of art!

Michael,

Thanks for responding! I feel really “Internet-famous” right now!

Have you read Daniel Dennett’s book “Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting?” I think it would help you understand where we metaphysical naturalists are coming from in regards to ethics and aesthetics. No matter what Deepak Chopra and other self-help, fluff-pedaling gurus will tell you, we can be pretty sure that our aesthetic choices are based in our brains. If you want to study human free will, the brain is the logical place to start. Asking a clergy member about it may have some value, in that religions have long traditions that connect with many people, and we can at least learn what other people think, but science should at least be a barrier against harmful spiritual beliefs. This is why I used the example of astrology. You can call people like James Randi insensitive, but the practice of setting up tests to debunk spiritual beliefs is educational to people who believe weird things. When you get rid of superstitious beliefs and replace them with reasonable scientific beliefs you will be better equipped to make the hard decisions in the real world.

The metaphysical naturalist point of view is absolutely antithetical to almost every religious worldview. I understand that science proceeds from a methodological naturalist perspective (which is different), but to me there is barely a hairs-breadth of difference between the two. Any way you cut it, you can know true things with science or you can believe weird things with religion. Which would you choose?

I understand that the liberal clergy you associate with do understand that science is right, and religion is about “spiritual traditions” and “building community.” I have been to these churches, and they use the word “mystery” like it’s going out of style (hopefully, it is…). “Mysteries” are simply the state of our knowledge before we find out what’s going on with the things we are observing. But in religion, “mysteries” are sacred cows that you can’t touch, because we just believe them, because we believe them, because we believe them.

I once had a clergy member tell me “If you can accept that the resurrection happened you can believe anything” I laughed, thinking that he was trying to say he “gets” my atheism, but he was actually speaking about the “depth” of his faith and how great a “mystery” this was. Blind faith is no virtue.

I understand that politicized religion is a great threat to our society, and that I have natural alliances with the members of the clergy letter project. So I encourage that work to continue. I hope that Intelligent design and Creationism will become dead memes in my lifetime. I wonder how long it will take for human knowledge to swallow all the crazy supernatural ideas of religion, too.

Daniel,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on one fairly basic point: I believe that the methodology of science imposes limits on its scope, you seem to believe otherwise.

I have no problem at all with research that focuses on the nature of the brain and learning what it might tell us about how we react when we perceive pleasure in a piece of art, in a symphony or a great work of literature. I don’t believe, however, that the scientific method is structured in such a way that it can show that one piece of music, or one genre, is “better” than another. Similarly, I don’t believe that the scientific method will be able to tell us that one public policy is better than another pubic policy. Yes, of course, science may have a great deal to say about the effects of implementation of one policy rather than another, but not whether we “must” favor one policy over the other.

And all of this is independent of religion. I’m not asking that religion be privileged, only that we recognize that non-scientists also have a role to play in public decision-making.

Finally, in my original essay, I did two things. I called on people who care about science literacy to applaud those clergy members who are promoting high quality science education. Unfortunately, many of the responses to my essay have attempted to do exactly the opposite. They’ve attacked religious leaders simply because they are religious - often equating the fundamentalist extremists with those clergy who are as opposed to those extremists as are the rest of us.

I also asked that we respect the differences between religion and science. Understanding and respecting the differences is not the same thing as respecting everything about religion. You and I both have made it clear that there are huge differences between the two - I would hope that others would think about those differences as well. Which brings me full circle to my original point above - I think that science has imposed limits on itself.

Thanks for your response. I think we have both accurately and fully explained our positions. It is truly an honor to speak to a working scientist about these issues.

I haven’t yet read your book “Science, Nonscience, and Nonsense: Approaching Environmental Literacy” but it is now definitely on my list of things to read. I feel like our exchange was productive and showed me that there are people out there who are willing to have real dialogue about these issues, despite dogma or ideology.

Do you have a website, blog, book, or anything else you would like us to mention on our next radio show/podcast? In appreciation of your time in responding to my post, I think it is only fair we try to give some of your work a plug.

Yes, it is very nice to be able to disagree civilly and, hopefully, to raise the quality of the dialogue while disagreeing. Thanks very much, also, for asking about what you can mention on your next radio show/podcast. Simply mentioning The Clergy Letter Project, it’s offshoot Evolution Weekend, and my presence on Huffington Post would be great.

Thanks again.