杏吧原创

It had all the fervour of a revivalist meeting. True, there were no hallelujahs, gospel songs or swooning, but there was plenty of preaching, mostly to the converted, and much spontaneous applause for exhortations to follow the path of righteousness. And right there at the forefront of everyone鈥檚 thoughts was God.

Yet this was no religious gathering 鈥� quite the opposite. Some of the leading practitioners of modern science, many of them vocal atheists, were gathered last week in La Jolla, California, for a symposium entitled 鈥淏eyond belief: Science, religion, reason and survival鈥� hosted by the Science Network, a science-promoting coalition of scientists and media professionals convening at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. They were there to address three questions. Should science do away with religion? What would science put in religion鈥檚 place? And can we be good without God?

First up to address the initial question was cosmologist Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas, Austin. His answer was an unequivocal yes. 鈥淭he world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion,鈥� Weinberg told the congregation. 鈥淎nything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilisation.鈥�

Those uncompromising words won Weinberg a rapturous response. Yet not long afterwards he was being excoriated for not being tough enough on religion, and admitting he would miss it once it was gone. Religion was, Weinberg had said, like 鈥渁 crazy old aunt鈥� who tells lies and stirs up mischief. 鈥淪he was beautiful once,鈥� he suggested. 鈥淪he鈥檚 been with us a long time. When she鈥檚 gone we may miss her.鈥� Science, he admitted, could not offer the 鈥渂ig truths鈥� that religion claims to provide; all it can manage is a set of little truths about the universe.

Richard Dawkins of the University of Oxford would have none of it. Weinberg, he said, was being inexplicably conciliatory, 鈥渟craping the barrel鈥� to have something nice to say about religion. 鈥淚 am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion,鈥� Dawkins told the assembly.

He was soon joined by Carolyn Porco of the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado, who had been charged with providing an answer for the second question: if not God, then what? Science, she said, could do at least as well as religion. 鈥淚f anyone has a replacement for God, then scientists do.鈥� Porco said. 鈥淎t the heart of scientific inquiry is a spiritual quest, to come to know the natural world by understanding it鈥� Being a scientist and staring immensity and eternity in the face every day is about as meaningful and awe-inspiring as it gets.鈥�

Astronomers in particular, she suggested, regularly confront the big questions of wonder. 鈥淭he answers to these questions have produced the greatest story ever told and there isn鈥檛 a religion that can offer anything better.鈥� Religious people, she claimed, use God to feel connected to something grander than they are, and find meaning and purpose through that connection. So why not show them their place in the universe and give them a sense of connectedness to the cosmos? The answers to why we are here, if they exist at all, will be found in astronomy and evolution, she said.

A secular icon

Science provides an aesthetic view of the cosmos that could replace that provided by religion 鈥� a view that could even be celebrated by its own iconography, Porco added. Images of the natural world and cosmos, such as the Cassini photograph of Earth taken from beyond Saturn, Apollo 8鈥檚 historic Earthrise or the Hubble Deep Field image, could offer a similar solace to religious artwork or icons.

The big challenge, according to Porco, will be dealing with awareness of our own mortality. The God-concept brings a sense of immortality, something science can鈥檛 offer. Instead, she suggested highlighting the fact that our atoms came from stardust and would return to the cosmos 鈥� as mass or energy 鈥� after we die. 鈥淲e should teach people to find comfort in that thought. We can find comfort in knowing that everyone who has ever lived on the Earth will some day adorn the heavens.鈥�

鈥淲e can find comfort in knowing that everyone who has ever lived on the Earth will some day adorn the heavens鈥�

Like many of the others at the meeting, Porco was preaching to the choir, and there was no more animated or passionate preacher than Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York. Tyson spoke with an evangelist鈥檚 zeal, and he had the heretics in his sights. Referring to a recent poll of US National Academy of Sciences members which showed 85 per cent do not believe in a personal God, he suggested that the remaining 15 per cent were a problem that needs to be addressed. 鈥淗ow come the number isn鈥檛 zero?鈥� he asked. 鈥淭hat should be the subject of everybody鈥檚 investigation. That鈥檚 something that we can鈥檛 just sweep under the rug.鈥�

This single statistic, he said, gave the lie to claims that patiently creating a scientifically literate public would get rid of religion. 鈥淗ow can [the public] do better than the scientists themselves? That鈥檚 unrealistic.鈥�

DeGrasse Tyson clearly found it hard to swallow the idea that a scientist could be satisfied by revelation rather than investigation. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want the religious person in the lab telling me that God is responsible for what it is they cannot discover,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 like saying no one else will ever discover how something works.鈥�

For others, the idea that it is somehow unacceptable for scientists to maintain a religious belief was going too far. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e doing science, they鈥檙e not a problem,鈥� said Lawrence Krauss, a physicist based at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. 杏吧原创s are not a special class of humanity, he pointed out, so it is hardly surprising that a small number of academy members are also believers. 鈥淚t would be amazing if that figure were zero,鈥� he said. 鈥溞影稍�创s are people, and we all make up inventions so we can rationalise about who we are.鈥�

Krauss says he found the meeting at La Jolla a peculiar experience. He is a veteran of campaigns against religious incursion into science, and testified against the scientific credentials of 鈥渋ntelligent design鈥� in the Dover school board trial in Pennsylvania last year. 鈥淚鈥檓 not usually the person who defends faith,鈥� he told New 杏吧原创.

Krauss wasn鈥檛 the only participant who seemed to think some of the more militant speakers were a tad over the top. Joan Roughgarden, a professor of geophysics and biology at Stanford University, California, described some of the statements being made as an 鈥渆xaggerated and highly rose-coloured picture of the capabilities of science鈥� while presenting a caricature of people of faith. Attempts by militant atheists to represent science as a substitute for religion would be a huge mistake, she said, and might even set back science鈥檚 cause. 鈥淭hey are entitled as atheists to generate more activism within the atheist community,鈥� she told New 杏吧原创. 鈥淏ut scientists are portraying themselves as the enlightened white knights while people of faith are portrayed as idiots who can鈥檛 tell the difference between a [communion] wafer and a piece of meat.鈥� People of faith are being antagonised, and this is 鈥渁 lose-lose proposition鈥�, she said.

She also suggested that science, like religion, had dogma and prophets of its own, citing as an example the 鈥渓ocker-room bravado鈥� of many biologists in promoting the received wisdom regarding sexual selection. What鈥檚 more, she said, science鈥檚 ethics were open to being manipulated 鈥� notably by biotechnology companies 鈥� leading her to seriously doubt that a workable morality could be developed by the rationalist scientific community.

Biology rules

This was not a view shared by Patricia Churchland of the University of California, San Diego, who was charged with answering the question 鈥渃an we be good without God?鈥�. Values, Churchland said, are set by what we care about, and as social animals we care about mates, kin and insider-outsider relationships. Every human social value and moral, she said, can be traced back to group dynamics and biochemistry; there is no need for a scriptural mandate. Thus the answer to the third question of the meeting became an overwhelming yes.

With three positive verdicts in the bag, the mood was clear: science can take on religion and win. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got to come out,鈥� urged chemist Harry Kroto of Florida State University, Tallahassee. Dawkins also used the same phrase, and compared the secular scientists鈥� position to that of gay men in the late 1960s. If everyone was willing to stand up and be counted, they could change things, he said. 鈥淵es I鈥檓 preaching to the choir,鈥� Dawkins admitted. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 a big choir and it鈥檚 an enthusiastic choir.鈥�

Kroto certainly declared himself ready to fight the good fight. 鈥淲e鈥檙e in a McCarthy era against people who don鈥檛 accept Christianity,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got to do something about it.鈥� His answer is to launch a coordinated global effort at education, media outreach and campaigning on behalf of science. Such an effort worked against apartheid, he said, and the internet now provided a platform that could take science education programmes into every home without being subject to the ideological and commercial whims of network broadcasters. He has schools run by religious groups firmly in his sights too. 鈥淲e must try to work against faith schooling,鈥� he said.

For all the evangelical fervour, some attendees suggested that a little more humility might be in order. 鈥淭his is Alice in Wonderland, it鈥檚 just a neo-Christian cult,鈥� Scott Atran of the CNRS in Paris told New 杏吧原创. 鈥淭he arguments being put forward here are extraordinarily blind and simplistic. The Soviets taught kids in schools about science 鈥� religiously 鈥� and it didn鈥檛 work out too well. I just don鈥檛 think scientists, when they step out of science, have any better insight than the ordinary schmuck on the street. It makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.鈥�

Krauss was similarly critical. 鈥淭he presumption here was that any effort to respect the existence of faith is a bad thing,鈥� he told New 杏吧原创. 鈥淧hilosophically I鈥檓 in complete agreement, but it鈥檚 not a scientific statement, and I鈥檝e seen how offensive it is when scientists say 鈥業 can tell you what you have to think鈥�. They make people more afraid of science. It鈥檚 inappropriate, and it鈥檚 certainly not effective.鈥�

Dawkins, though, is ready to mobilise. The meeting, he says, achieved 鈥減robably a little鈥� 鈥� but every little helps. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a certain sort of negativity you get from people who say 鈥業 don鈥檛 like religion but you can鈥檛 do anything about it鈥�. That鈥檚 a real counsel of defeatism. We should roll our sleeves up and get on with it.鈥�