Science & Religion: A Dialogue

I was thinking more about the science/religion question.

Science is nearly certain about its basic truths–atomic, gravitational, evolutionary, quantum, relativity theories. If we add truths from logic and mathematics the argument gets stronger. (I understand that we may live in a simulation or the gods are playing with our minds, but other than that we can be as sure of these things as anything we know.)

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this represents 1% of all possible knowledge; that is we would then be 99% short of omniscience if we believed these things and they were true. Yes there is no way to calculate this but the argument doesn’t change if we know 10% of all there is to know or 0.0000001%. Unless one is a complete full-blown epistemological skeptic, we have some small bit of knowledge. Now for the theologians the less we know the better, for that leaves more room for the unknown which, according to them, leaves more room for their gods.

Now the question is: Is it better to live believing these relatively certain things, proportioning our assent to the evidence about other proposition, and being skeptical of speculation; or is it better to engage in metaphysical speculation, or to just affirm without evidence that reality is good, say because of gods? Now let’s follow the conversation of two thinkers on this question:

Theologian – “there is so much you don’t know  so there might be gods or souls in there or out there somewhere. Moreover we might as well talk about all we don’t know–say about whether hope is justified and whether life is meaningful–since these topics are of such great importance to people. And people like the comfort we provide when we describe the mysterious in a favorable light. ”

Scientist – “let’s not go beyond  what we know beyond a reasonable doubt and posit supernatural explanations for that is just speculation. Instead let’s use the only method that has ever provided humans with any knowledge at all and accept what we don’t know rather than speculating about the favorable or unfavorable light we might shine on what we don’t know.”

Theologian – “But people can’t live with that kind of ambiguity. Besides I feel confident that there are gods and they are good.”

Scientist – “Some people can’t live with ambiguity, but a lot of people do. Besides believing things without sufficient evidence is often harmful because one’s beliefs affect others. You have an obligation only to believe those things for which there is sufficient evidence.”

Theologian – “Why? We have to accept all sorts of things without sufficient evidence and I chose to accept there are loving gods, that life makes sense, that I am immortal, and that these hopes are justified.”

Scientist – “There is nothing wrong with optimism about things you don’t know, as long as you keep them private. But when you try to influence the public realm, you are open to the criticism that your ideas are not sufficiently supported.”

Theologian – “Well I’d rather be wrong and at least have speculated about the good nature of reality beyond what I know, than limit myself to your relatively certain but unimportant truths.”

Scientist – “Well I’d rather have my limited amount of truths about which I can feel really confident, and then try to learn a little bit more with each generation. I can live with ambiguity.”

Theologian – “I don’t see how you can live like that, but I suppose we are just different kinds of people.”

Scientist – “I don’t see how you can live like you do either. I suppose we are different. And as long as you want to believe whatever in private ok. But don’t try to bring your religious beliefs into our sciences classes.”

Theologian – “But your beliefs–in heliocentrism and evolution–invade in theology. So you necessarily bring your scientific truths into religion. After all it was Galileo who started all this and now Darwin. You effect us as much as the reverse.”

Scientist – “Well we’re sorry but it turns out Galileo and Darwin were right. And you can either reject obvious truths like the fundamentalists do or modify your religious beliefs.”

Theologian – “That’s what we sophisticated theologians do; we’re not geocentrists or anti-evolutionists. We accept those things with our sophisticated theologies.”

Scientists – “Ok. This means you’ll become more and more like science. You’ll be a mystical reflection on science. And as knowledge grows you’ll have fewer and fewer gaps for your gods.”

Theologian – “I’m no “god of the gaps” theologian. I identify my god with the anti-entropic life forces that grounds being by attracting it toward higher levels of being and consciousness.”

Scientist – That sounds cool but I think you might be talking about cosmic evolution.”

Theologian – “I am.”

Scientist – “Then your theology is being modified by science.”

Theologian – “Of course. Just like Christianity was modified by its encounter with Greek philosophy.”

Scientist – “Sounds like your beliefs will evolve based on our real understanding of the world.”

Theologian – “Yes.”

Scientist – “Well then you’ll just have to wait for us to figure things out.”

Theologian – “And when you do we can still say that’s god, what the scientists figured out.”

Scientist – “Weird so you will stand on the sidelines for millenia and continue to modify your speculations based on what we discover.”

Theologian – “Of course because none of us can put into words what explains all this.”

Scientist – “Suppose we someday to explain everything or almost everything?”

Theologian – “You just can’t.”

Scientist – “But we’ll explain more and more and if there is no room for your gods then will you give up believing in them?”

Theologian – “I don’t think so.”

Scientist – “Ok. I have to get back to work actually figuring something out.”