Tom Yulsman on Religion and Science
November 22nd, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
University of Colorado professor and faculty affiliate to our Center Tom Yulsman has a characteristically thoughful perspective in 20 November The Denver Post titled, “Science and religion face off.” Here is an excerpt:
“That millions of Christians and Jews, including many scientists, believe both in God and traditional evolutionary biology, seems almost too obvious to require argument. And they seem to suffer neither from the utopian fantasies and moral degradation predicted by the proponents of intelligent design, nor from the diminution of their spiritual feelings and belief in God…”
Read the whole thing.
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:27 pm
I believe it would be impossible to find a better written and more insightful view on this topic than this concise piece.
In relating it to this site’s attempt to tie rationality to policy, the only think you can do with this artcle is to print and send a copy to every elected official in the land. Then vote the rascals out who ignore it and choose to promote ignorance. They did that in Pennsylvania and I trust they will do it soon in Kansas.
I’m talking too much around here so I’ll be quiet for a while.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:48 pm
The interplay of science and religion in an individual’s mind and in the public sphere is complex. With all respect, I think Dr. Yulsman is taking a cheap way out, confusing awe with religion. An aspect of truly religious persons is their awe when confronted with creation, an aspect of truly good scientists is their awe when confronted with creation, but these feelings and their origins differ. Einstein in every aspect of his life was areligious, but his awe when contemplating nature was constant.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:41 am
I agree that Dr. Yulsman is making the easy but ultimately unsatisfying argument. The idea that Stephen Hawking’s God is one “who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings” may be an idea that practicing scientists will sympathize with, but that many Christians may find even more threatening than evolution. I am not much of a biblical scholar, but I think that the fate and actions of human beings are major themes in the Bible and modern worship. Explanations of the ways scientists reconcile their religion with modern science are probably not going to be very comforting to most religious americans who view science with suspicion (or at least in conflict with their faith). The greater challenge is to convince religious individuals that the ideas and implications of evolution are not in conflict with the special relationship between God and humanity described in the Bible, and the lessons in morality that follow.
November 24th, 2005 at 1:37 am
Eli Rabett suggests that I “confuse awe with religion.” He must be confusing me with Einstein (thank you very much!) because it was Einstein, not me, who described himself as experiencing “cosmic RELIGIOUS feeling.” I guess when Einstein said this he just didn’t know the difference between awe and religion.
As for Christians feeling threatened by Einstein’s idea of “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists,” do any readers of this forum doubt that while conservative Christians may feel threatened, millions of liberal Christians resonate to this statement (and also accept modern evolutionary concepts)?
Certainly, Jews have been resonating to this kind of statement for hundreds of years, particularly kabbalists and Hassidim. As Arthur Green, Professor of Jewish Thought at Brandeis, writes:
“Kabbalah teaches that there is a secret unity of all Being, hidden within the multiplicity and diversity of life as we experience it. God and universe are related not primarily as Creator and creature, which sounds as though they are separate from one another, but as deep structure and surface. God lies within or behind the facade of all that is. In order to discover God — or the real meaning or the essential Oneness of Being — we need to turn inward, to look more deeply at ourselves and the world around us. Scratch the surface of reality and you will discover God.”
That sure sounds like a statement that is consonant with the “harmony of all that exists.” And this ancient mode of Jewish thought has been anything but threatening for very many Jews over the ages.
So no, I do not confuse awe with religion. The real issue is the naive views of what “religion” and “God” must necessarily mean. Whereas these naive views certainly are held by large numbers of of atheists, agnostics and religious people alike, millions of Christians and Jews surely have a more sophisticated view.
Lastly, I do not mean to argue that the majority of Americans hold a sophisticated religious view like the one I am describing. Quite to the contrary. Forty-five percent of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll said they believe God created humans in their current form about 10,000 years ago. My intent in writing the column simply was to point out that religion and evolution do not necessarily have to be incompatible.
November 25th, 2005 at 1:00 am
Congratulations, Tom, you’ve shown that there is a pocket in conceptual space in which science and a kind of vaporous spirituality — an awe that I, an avowedly non-religious person, happily share — can co-exist.
So what?
Back in the real world, the vast majority of U.S. Christians believe in a kind of anthropomorphized God that is *not* compatible with science. These are the people whose silent assent is allowing the I.D. “debate” to persist.
There’s a fight going on between the forces of rationalism and irrationalism. Writings like yours sound like, “hey, hey, kids, now, let’s not fight, we can all get along.” But the *actual* people who are *actually* engaged in the fight — as opposed to your Einsteins and Spinozas — *can’t* get along.
You need to choose sides.
November 25th, 2005 at 6:51 am
Hi Dave-
Thanks for paricipating. You write to Tom, “You need to choose sides.” You are applying the same logic as George Bush when he frequently says that “you’re either with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
Tom’s essay does chose sides! He divides the world between (a) those people who think that science is incompatible with religion, and (b) those who think science is compatible with religion. He then places himself squarely in camp (b). You may not like how he divides the world, but apparently he doesn’t like your division either.
You want to force him to take sides in your own personal political agenda, which interestingly enough (as Tom argues) includes two groups who agree on (a) above, one taking the religious side, one taking the science side.
Tom can speak for himself, but from where I sit, the world is not black and white (or red and blue, as the case might be) and on most issues there are far more than two sides, as Tom’s column and responses eloquently show.
November 25th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Hi Roger,
You and Tom, academics that you are (and I say that with fondness, as an ex-academic myself), are “dividing the world,” as you say, along theoretical lines. That’s fine. If you want a theoretical argument, Tom’s right: It is *possible* to be religious and scientific at once. I won’t argue (though I’d use the term “spiritual” for what Tom describes).
But you both seem to be rather willfully turning away from the debate that is *actually taking place*. The Christian Right is resurgent. They are, to use a term in vogue, emboldened. They are arguing that their religion cannot live comfortably alongside science. And in this they are correct. *Their* religion can’t.
Despite the nonsense about ID, it’s the Christian Right that’s behind this renewed debate. They feel (properly) threatened by the secular world and the science that undergirds it. They see the debate more clearly than you and Tom seem to.
It’s not my personal political agenda. The last thing I want is to have this ancient argument again. But they are thrusting the argument on us. We would do well to rise to the occasion, don’t you think?
November 26th, 2005 at 1:17 am
Dave: I wholeheartedly agree that there is a battle going on between rationalism and irrationalism. And I’m doing all that I can to help rationalism win. But my strategy isn’t to wall myself off in a castle and shoot arrows. I would rather venture forth and engage people in discussion. So on Wednesday I spent two hours on a right-wing talk radio program engaging fundamentalists and others on the issue of intelligent design. Next Wednesday I’ll be part of a panel on our local PBS station to debate the subject for an hour.
What have you done lately other than talk to people who agree with you?
And what would you have me do in “choosing sides” and “rising to the occasion”? Give up my religious beliefs (which I and millions of other people have no problem holding in harmony with science), and abandon my core values (which include trying to remain steadfast against extremism of any stripe)?
Lastly, are you telling me that my religion — the one I practice when I go to synagogue several times a month — is “vaporous” and “theoretical”? That’s funny. When I read Torah, it sure doesn’t seem that way to me. But I guess in comparison with the fundamentalist and unsophisticated views about religion shared by extremists on the left and right, maybe my religion is vaporous and theoretical. If so, I embrace theory and vapor.
Roger is right. I have chosen sides, and yours is not the one I’m on.
– Tom
November 26th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
For what it’s worth, I thought the piece was a bit weak. For one, it sometimes treated religion as the practice of engaging in warm and fuzzy thoughts about self and universe, and sometimes as simple deism, the former type of religion being compatible with anything, and the latter being, as pointed out, anathema to most monotheists.
For another, I don’t think invoking Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria” is credible, since to my knowledge he treated no religion as having any teaching authority. Though at least he didn’t engage in the village atheist polemics of Dawkins.
Finally, there is at least one point where science could hypothetically disprove Christianity, namely by finding the body of Jesus of Nazareth. As St. Paul declares, “And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.” (1 Cor 15:17) Certain Christians and atheists think there are more areas where such disproofs could happen, but that’s at least the bare minimum arena of possible conflict.
I’m wondering what you make of the way evolution is taught. There is certainly a lot of sloppy teaching in the field. One of my anthropology classes at CU-Boulder engaged in Bonobo hagiography, depicting the oversexed apes as moral exemplars, while the professor habitually proclaimed his existential despair because he believed himself to be in a purposeless universe, and that Darwinism justified his unwelcomed hopelessness.
What’s more, there’s a certain philosophical anthropology at work in the presentation of evolution. For all its claims to have banished “telos,” popular Darwinism treats genetic propagation as the highest good of mankind, and thus lust is portrayed as a positive good rather than a sin. It also tends to deny human agency and, following Darwin, any ontological difference between man and his fellow creatures.
Have you read Edward T. Oakes’ theological-philosophical takedown of the ID movement? see http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0101/reviews/oakes.html
He wrote this review of Johnson’s Wedge of Truth while a professor at Regis in Denver, and as a Catholic priest he would offer another resource for more concordist ways of thinking. He’s also very good at laying the smackdown on certain Darwinians’ philosophical overreach.
November 27th, 2005 at 10:36 am
Thanks for this interesting thread. You gave me several hours of interesting reading and writing (http://skeptacles.blogspot.com/2005/11/prometheus-tom-yulsman-on-religion-and.html if you’re interested), and I learned a little something. Happy Sunday to you all.
November 27th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Like Steve Sturgill, I would like to thank the original author and all those who contributed to the discussion for an enlightening read. This is not a topic on which I would claim any expertice.
At the end of my read, however, I was struck by something: While all contributors seemed quite knowledgable and have obviously given the issue a lot of thought, could graduating high school students in the United States today have any idea what they were talking about? I think the answer is ‘no’, and I think that is a shame!
I do not believe that Intelligent Design is a viable scientific theory, because it is primarily derived from our ignorance, not our knowledge. Observation generated the theory of evolution, but ID does not come from observing facts. It has its roots in the ignorance between knowledge.
Nonetheless, it is a subject that has generated a lot of thought and concern among some of the worlds greatest thinkers. It is ‘the big question’, yet we are not supposed to mention it in front of the children (i.e. public school)!
So far, none of the contributors have even mentioned anything about teaching children, other than a passing reference to school boards in the original article. Isn’t that the crux of the matter? Isn’t that what this is all about?
The current I.D. debate is not talking place in a vacuum. It is the result, I feel, of the systematic rewritting of history be removing all references to Judeo/Christian religion and theology from the public school curriculum. Along with that baby, goes much of the bath water of philosophy.
I doubt that there would be a current movement to introduce I.D. as a scientific concept if modern education had not been sterilized of meaningful religious and philosophical content.
November 28th, 2005 at 10:28 am
This op-ed completely misses the fact that Intelligent Design is completely incompatible with learning in a SCIENCE class, because Intelligent Design is not science.
November 28th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Jim Clarke,
I think you’re quite right that this is a reaction to the deliberate neglect of religious topics in education. I think it is a misguided reaction to a very real problem.
As for the “it ain’t science” line, I’ll just say that intelligent Design is a theory of natural philosophy right out of the nineteenth century. Considering the inability of philosophers of science to come to general agreement about the nature of scientific inquiry, I’m not entirely sure entirely cutting off “science” from the field of natural philosophy is an intellectually profitable move.
I will also note Aristotle’s belief that political science is perhaps the most important of the sciences, because politics determines which sciences will be taught, and in what manner. “Who decides what science is?” is a political question.
I have no particular reason to believe that contemporary scientists have a coherent and authoritative theory of science to which any layman or parent of a student must assent when they declare something “science” or “not science.” Scientific inquiry is great in practice, but scientists cannot conceptualize their own project without stepping outside of the categories and practices of natural science and venturing into philosophical modes of inquiry.
November 28th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Mark Bahner claims that I miss the fact “that Intelligent Design is completely incompatible with learning in a SCIENCE class, because Intelligent Design is not science.” Mark, I guess you haven’t actually read the piece because I make it quite clear that intelligent design is a religious and political movement, not a scientific concept.
But in case I didn’t make it clear enough for you: I do not believe intelligent design is science. I do not believe that it is a theory or even a well developed hypothesis of any kind (because it posits little more than a critique of Darwinian evolution — and an exceedingly weak critique at that). I do not believe it ought to be taught in science class (although I do believe high school students ought to be discussing these issues in another venue, because if it’s good enough for us, it’s good enough for them). And I DO believe in the fact of descent with modification, and that modern evolutionary theory with its cornerstone of natural selection is as well corroborated and established a scientific paradigm as, say, Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity. Indeed, it is the very cornerstone of all of biological science.
And no Mr. Chairman, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of Focus on the Family.
As for Kevin Jones’s point that my religious beliefs are “warm and fuzzy,” I’ll take that any day over “cold and prickly.” And I will also take Jefferson’s deism and Einstein’s “cosmic religious feeling” over the angry atheism and freaky fundamentalism I’ve been experiencing the last few days, thank you very much. (As I’ve been pointing out in just about every post, millions of other Americans are with me on this.)
The angry and the freaky have only helped confirm my central thesis: Polemicists on extreme ends of the ideological spectrum have hijacked the discussion of these issues, to the detriment of the cause of enlightenment and the search for meaning in life.
November 28th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
One thing that Tom Yulsman’s replies make clear is that there are many views of G_d even within one relatively small, but influential tradition. However, IMHO he has done it again, mashing Einstein, Kabbala, Spinoza and the Hassidim together.
I think none of those groups would be happy in the same pot. I always thought it interesting that Schneerson was trained as an engineer. He confronted the same issues, but his conclusion, would, I imagine, not satisfy Tom, e.g. that Torah contains absolute truth, and that science provides possible descriptions of reality. Therefore one can only find truth in Torah. You might enjoy this letter http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?AID=60946
which, I think, captures why I don’t think much of your argument. Schneerson is following the logical conclusion of his belief, and belief carries all before it. There is no easy reconciliation.
November 28th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Mr. Yulsman,
Just to clarify, I didn’t call your own religious beliefs warm and fuzzy, just that sometimes your piece presented religion as such. It’s pedantic of me to insist on such precision in a short piece, but I just wanted to raise the objection, since it’s a pet peeve of mine that we so often speak of “religion” in general terms when we should be talking about particular faith communities, the species and not the genus.
I’ll just be more annoying here and state that I think moderates are just extremists who happen to be in power and thus defend the status quo. The linear model of politics(wacko left-middle-wacko right) is also a crummy model.
I do hope you will read the Oakes piece I linked to, despite my unintentionally offending you.
November 28th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Tom Yulsman responds to my comment: “Mark, I guess you haven’t actually read the piece because I make it quite clear that intelligent design is a religious and political movement, not a scientific concept.”
I DID read your piece. Your writing simply wasn’t very clear.
Here is your very first paragraph:
“With controversies raging over the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom, people on opposite sides of the debate seem to agree on one thing: The answer is “no.” They frame the issue in black-and-white terms, leaving no room for nuance and ambiguity. In doing so, they implacably pit religion and science against each other, harming both.”
You make it seem like it is NOT “black and white.” But it IS “black and white,” with regard to teaching ID in SCIENCE classes.
If you’d followed that first paragraph immediately making it clear that ID does NOT belong in science classrooms (which is where ID proponents want to put it, after all!) then I wouldn’t have made my comment.
November 28th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Tom Yulsman also writes, “And no Mr. Chairman, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of Focus on the Family.”
I certainly didn’t think you were, Tom! I think you’re a typical leftist who wants to pretend that everything can be made “compatible,” if we just avoid “extremism of any stripe.”
That’s BS. ID is simply not compatible with being taught in a science class, and I don’t think you move discussion forward when you don’t make that clear. After you make that clear, making it clear that you think it’s compatible with being taught in some other study area–such as Survey of Religions–is fine.
November 28th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Mark: Sorry, but you are mistaken about the first paragraph of my piece. The first paragraph that I wrote and that was actually published in the Denver Post goes as follows: “Is evolution compatible with religion?”
My answer, as published: “With controversies raging over the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom, people on opposite sides of the debate seem to agree on one thing: The answer is ‘no.’”
The “no” refers to the whether evolution is compatible with religion, not to whether ID should be taught in the science classroom.
I’m sorry, but your knee seems to be jerking so violently on this issue that you seem incapable of reading the words that actually are on the page. Read the piece again. I am emphatic in stating that intelligent design is a religious and political movement, not science. You seem to want to read into what I said, perhaps because you disagree with my central thesis: that evolution and science do not necessarily have to be at odds. If that’s your issue, let’s discuss it. I’m open to your thoughts. But let’s be clear: This column did not focus on whether ID should be taught in the science classroom, although I think it was pretty clear about where I come down on that issue.
My goodness, I’m not saying that religion is “good” or atheism is “bad.” I’m simply asking that atheists stop being as absolutist in their perspective as the religious fundamentalists — whom we all agree are sadly misguided. And I’m arguing that you at least consider the objective reality that there are millions of people out there, myself included, who have absolutely no problem whatsoever being religious and believing that science has given us profound and extremely well corroborated answers to how the diversity of life on Earth came to be.
A confession: I own not one but TWO rock hammers. I spend every spring break with them in southern Utah. And I most definitely do not believe that the ripple marks I find on rock layers from 200 million years ago were the result of Noah’s Flood.
Lastly, to David Roberts, I take it back: I AM on your side. We continue to be engaged in a battle between rationalism and irrationalism. But I’m arguing that rationalism cannot possibly win if you reject the idea that religion and science can co-exist — perhaps uneasily, but co-exist nonetheless.
November 29th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Tom Yulsman writes, “I am emphatic in stating that intelligent design is a religious and political movement, not science.”
Yes, but where you are not emphatic–not clear at all, in fact–is emphasizing that therefore intelligent design does not belong in a SCIENCE classroom.
Tom Yulsman continues, “You seem to want to read into what I said, perhaps because you disagree with my central thesis: that evolution and science(sic! heh, heh, heh!) do not necessarily have to be at odds.”
No, I very firmly agree (“110%,” as our math-illiterate culture would say) that evolution and *religion* (at least some religion) are completely compatible. (Note: Evolution is clearly not compatible with a 6000 year-old earth, and The Flood and Noah’s Ark. A great many branches of science aren’t compatible with those religious beliefs.)
“But let’s be clear: This column did not focus on whether ID should be taught in the science classroom, although I think it was pretty clear about where I come down on that issue.”
Wouldn’t you agree that the column DID focus on whether ID belongs in any classroom at all? If you agree with that, my only point was that your column should have made clear that ID might be fine for ***a*** classroom, but most definitely not a SCIENCE classroom.
“I’m simply asking that atheists stop being as absolutist in their perspective as the religious fundamentalists — whom we all agree are sadly misguided.”
Yes, this is what I call your “leftist” tendency. Leftists (more than rightists) hate absolutes. But there ARE absolutes. ID absolutely does NOT belong in a SCIENCE classroom. (Other than if a student brings up a question related to ID, which might then be an occasion for good discussion and thinking.)
About a week ago, I heard an interview on NPR of one of the Dover, PA, schoolboard members, who was elected on (among other things) a stance that ID did not belong in **science** classrooms. (She was equally emphatic that she thought ID did belong in a classroom, just not a **science** classroom.) Apparently, in Dover, PA, science teachers were required to stop their science teaching, and read a message of some sort (put in by ID proponents). That is the sort of thing that’s absolutely wrong.
“A confession: I own not one but TWO rock hammers. I spend every spring break with them in southern Utah. And I most definitely do not believe that the ripple marks I find on rock layers from 200 million years ago were the result of Noah’s Flood.”
Well, even if you did, you’d have no business trying to teach your students that that was so, if you were teaching non-adults. (I don’t have much of a problem with professors espousing non-sense, since the students are adults.)
That is the point I’m making. You want to pretend there are no absolutes. But there ARE absolutes. ID is absolutely not science, so it absolutely should not be taught to children in a science classroom (where they might be confused into thinking ID is science).
Tom Yulsman concludes by telling Dave Roberts, “But I’m arguing that rationalism cannot possibly win if you reject the idea that religion and science can co-exist — perhaps uneasily, but co-exist nonetheless.”
But there ARE areas where religion and science simply can NOT co-exist. For example, it’s wrong to pretend that the religious belief in a 6000-year-old earth can co-exist with evolution…or many other branches of science.
If a SCIENCE teacher asks on a test, “How old is the earth?” and a student answers, “6000 years old”…GOD (or whatever gods may be) FORBID that the science teacher would ever accept that as the correct answer!
There are absolutes. ID is absolutely not science, and absolutely should not be taught as science.