Scientists Being Scientists

A friend forwarded a link to the upcoming documentary Expelled hosted by Ben Stein.  Take ten minutes to watch the extended trailer found in the Playground section of the movie's website.

I'll wait until after I see it to give my thoughts on the movie.  My thoughts on scientists who believe confidently that believing in God is foolish are that such scientists are themselves dishonest.  The atheist scientist is not, I am convinced, sure that all the evidence points clearly to the conclusion that there is no God.  Instead, the atheist scientist is self-delusional, controlled by pride or cowardice or some other diminishing vice.  There is plenty of good scientific evidence to support belief in God.  There certainly is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that should produce skepticism in the atheist hypothesis.  I simply think it is intellectually disingenuous to be a confident atheist.  There's no good evidence for such a belief.

I'm reminded of a quote from a book I've just finished (and will likely review soon), People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck.  He is speaking about a developing a "scientific study of evil" but his observations apply in any situation.  "Fortunately, in our culture, scientists love to argue with one another.  I shudder to think of a time and place in which there is a 'scientific' gospel of the nature of good and evil that is not subject to debate.  I use 'scientific' in quotes in this regard because debate is the cornerstone of genuine science, and a science without debate and exuberant skepticism is not a science at all."

Comments

[John Watson]

By the same token, isn't it intellectually disingenuous to be a confident believer? Also, Ben Stein is selling a movie by exploiting people on both sides of a controversial issue.

[Benjamin Franklin]

This films' main thesis, that anyone in the science community who believes in God is being "expelled" is false at its core.

In a New York Times interview, Walter Ruloff (producer of Expelled) said that researchers, who had studied cellular mechanisms, made findings suggestive of an intelligent designer. "But they are afraid to report them".

Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”, explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Mr. Ruloff said that Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line”.

That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.

Similarly, Dr. Ken Miller is a professed Christian who wrote "Finding Darwin's God" (which I suggest you read). Dr. Miller has not been "expelled" in any fashion for his belief in God.

The movie tries to make the case that "Big Science" is nothing but a huge atheist conspiracy out to silence believers, but only presents a very one-sided look at some Discovery Institute "martyrs".

Carolyn Crocker "expelled"? - No.
Her annual teaching contract was not renewed. Was she "fired" for daring to bring God into research? - No. She was hired to teach Biology, and she decided to ignore the schools' curriculum and substitute her own curriculum.

Guillermo Gonzalez "expelled"? - No.
He was not granted tenure. The film doesn't bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he had only brought in only a miniscule amount of grant money. Nor does it bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he failed to mentor a single student through to their PhD. Nor does it mention that in his career at ISU, his previous excellent record of publication had dropped precipitously.

Richard von Sternberg "expelled"? - No.
Sternberg continues to work for NIH in the same capacity. Of course the movie doesn't bring up his underhanded tactics in getting Meyers work published.

This movie attempts to influence it's viewers with dishonesty, half-truths, and by a completely one-sided presentation of the facts.

If a scientists' research is not accepted by the scientific community, it isn't because the scientist either believes or doesn't believe in God, it is usually because they are producing bad science. Like the idea of Intelligent Design.
.
.

[Dave Bruno]

John, I don't think it is the same for a couple of reasons. First, most believers (at least in the religious tradition of which I'm a part, Christianity) embrace a certain amount of doubt. I would be skeptical of a believer who expressed confidence the way some atheist scientists express confidence. In fact, the Bible is very open about doubt. I suppose the biggest difference, in the Christian tradition at least, is that God communicates and offers assurance in the heart of the believer. Who's assuring the atheist, though?

Secondly, there is simply no scientific justification for a confident atheist viewpoint. Even if a scientist believes that the wide sweep of scientific evidence does not warrant belief in God, there is overwhelming evidence for the possibility of God. I will not recount the kinds of evidences. But I really believe any honest person would agree that there is at the very least enough evidence suggesting God's existence that a certain amount of agnosticism should exist in all scientific pronouncements.

Atheist scientists like the late Stephen J. Gould and like Richard Dawkins are smart. They should be able to weigh the evidence and say that while it does not convince them, they can see that there are certain data that could support the belief in God. Normally they don't. It's been my experience and the experience of many who have heard or read them, that they express their confident atheism in arrogant and self-promoting ways. It is possible that they are cowards. No matter what, I think people like them are self-delusional. That's not to say that Christians and other people with other beliefs cannot also be self-delusional. I'm only saying that the person who claims with alleged confidence that there is no God is being self-delusional. I'd be curious if there is any other legitimate conclusion.

Ben, I think you are probably right. It sounds like you've seen the movie or read more about it than me. If Expelled fails to point out that there are many respected Christian scientists, as you mentioned, who are not "expelled," then it will have missed something. Academia is an inherently unsafe and unstable environment. It is possible for a Christian (or African American or lesbian or socialist) to be welcomed into the faculty of one school but run out of town at another. It would also be a half-truth, however, to suggest that no believing scientists have been picked on because of their faith. Whether this film will do a good job of telling that story, I'm not sure. But I tend to think you're assessment is going to be accurate.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Dave,

I wouldn't doubt for a minute that within the scientific community and within academia there have been people picked on, and perhaps even discriminated against because of their faith. Acadametians can certainly be single-minded, strutting peacocks, unflinchingly rooted to their concepts.

But Expelled claims that a nefarious cabal they label “Big Science" allows absolutely no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and goes further to blame the theory for a range of societal ills including the mass extermination of humanity by Hitler.

I see a grave danger in this sort of media manipulation of the masses.

We'll just have to see what the fall-out will be.

BF

[E.S.R.]

Without jumping into the debate about the movie itself, I just wanted to make a comment that the debate is more over our presuppositions. If we believe there is a God and that He is actively involved in the creation and ongoing existence of the universe than we will interpret the data accordingly. On the other hand, if we do not believe in God (or we believe in God but He is not involved in the universe) we will interpret the data according to that frame work. So an atheist will see all evidence pointing toward a universe without God and a Christian will see signs of "intelligent design." The trouble comes in when people decide that science can only be done from an atheistic (or at best deistic) framework. A Christian can use the scientific method and do impeccable lab work but if he is not using an atheistic framework his work is often seen as 'unscientific.' For what its worth that is the debate as I see it.

[Benjamin Franklin]

We should take to heart what St. Augustine wrote in the 5th century. It certainly is as valid today as it was then.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

[Dave Bruno]

E.S.R and Ben, thanks for the additional comments. I love Augustine, but am unfamiliar with that quote. What is the reference? It sounds like a short earlier work of his, Faith and the Creed. But I think it is something else.

Again, I think at best scientific evidence points to agnosticism, not atheism. There's just no "evidence" for being an atheist.

And I could not agree more with Ben. If Christians want to be considered legitimate scientists, they should be impeccable scientists, not bad exegetes.

[John Watson]

My experience has been that most believers believe in God unequivocally. At least publicly. It sounds like you're coming close to saying that *everyone* should be agnostic, believers and non-believers alike.

Re: no evidence for being an atheist. Isn't the burden of proof on the believers? That is, if you believe in *anything* shouldn't you be the one to prove it?

[Benjamin Franklin]

Dave-

It is from "The literal meaning of Genesis"

[Dave Bruno]

John, first of all we're not going to solve anything in the comments of this post. We need to grab a beer. Let's get C together soon.

But... I guess my understanding of belief and certainty would be different than what you've typically experienced. I like the way one of my philosophy professors summed it up, "Whoever said we have to be certain of something to believe it?"

Obviously "certainty" would require god-like knowledge. It seems silly for me to think that I can be certain in the absolute sense that atheists and many believers advocate. But it does not logically follow that I cannot be sure of something. I like the way that Lesslie Newbigin describes knowing in his book Proper Confidence.

Regarding who should prove what, I'd say the burden is on the atheist. After all that's the newer "belief" in the grand scheme of things. But regarding "proof" we'd have to define what it means to prove something.

[Paz]

Science, Bible agree: Giving is better

The Bible counsels misers that it's better to give than to receive. Science agrees. People who made gifts to others or to charities reported they were happier than folks who didn't share, according to a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

While previous studies have shown that having more money can increase happiness, the researchers at the University of British Columbia and Harvard University wondered if the way people spent their money made any difference.

Turns out, it does.

Lead researcher Elizabeth W. Dunn, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, said she wasn't surprised that doing something for others made people happy.

But she was struck by how big the effect was and that how people spent money was more important than how much money they had.

"This work suggests that even making small alterations in how we spend money on a daily basis can make a difference in happiness," Dunn said in a telephone interview.

"That doesn't mean go get a high paying job so you can spend tons of money on others. The message is, given what you have, how can you make little alterations to do something for others," she said.

And, she added, "there's nothing special about money," giving can involve time or special skills to help other people.

The report didn't surprise Sue Citro, senior digital membership manager for the Nature Conservancy:

"We do hear from our members and our supporters that the do get a real feeling of satisfaction from knowing their giving is doing good," she said.

Andrea Koslow, director of advertising at the American Red Cross, said: "The act of helping has its own profound effect."

"People need a humanitarian outlet ... feeling that they make a difference ... that's very motivating," Koslow said.

The good feeling associated with giving is why workplace charity opportunities can engage employees and lift morale, added Kristine Templin, director of corporate partnerships at the American Red Cross.

The researchers started by asking a sample of 632 Americans, 55 percent of whom were women, to rate their happiness on a scale of 1 to 5, the higher the number the happier.

Then they asked the participants to report their annual income and estimate how much they spent on paying bills, buying gifts for themselves, buying gifts for others and giving to charity.

The first two were considered personal spending and averaged $1,714-a-month, the second two were termed "prosocial" spending and averaged $146-a-month.

"Personal spending was unrelated to happiness," said the researchers. "But higher prosocial spending was associated with significantly greater happiness," they found.

Not content with that, they then studied 16 employees of a company in Boston, asking about their happiness one month before and six to eight weeks after each received a profit-sharing bonus from their employer.

In the second interview they also asked about personal and prosocial spending and once again those who spent more on others were happier.

"The manner in which they spent that bonus was a more important predictor of their happiness than the amount of the bonus itself," the researchers found.

Finally, 46 Canadian students were asked to rate their happiness and then each was given a random envelope containing money, ranging from $5 to $20. Some were instructed to spend it on themselves, others were told to buy a gift for someone else.

At 5 p.m. that day, they were called together again and asked to rate their happiness.

The amount of money had no impact on happiness, but those assigned to buy something for another person reported greater happiness than those told to get something for themselves, the researchers said.

A separate study published in 2006 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the same parts of the brain that produce the good feeling when a person receives a reward also respond when they give to someone else.

Indeed, researchers led by Jordan Grafman at the National Institutes of Health found the reward areas were more active when giving a gift than when receiving one