Chapter 2 of Breaking
the Spell by Daniel Dennett (see previous post, Sept. 2013), “Some
Questions About Science,” basically continues the argument that science should
study religion, something that most readers of the book probably don’t need to
be persuaded of, including me.
I was struck, though, that, having defined the object of his
study, religion, in chapter 1, Dennett never defines his methodology,
science. Considering that the act of
definition necessarily restricts the meaning of a term and that Dennett’s
definition of religion is so narrow (see Sept. 2013 post), his scientific
methodology is given rather free range.
The underlying assumption is that, science is the only reliable means to
truth and understanding. It is not
subjected to the critical questioning that Dennett applies to religion.
As stated in the previous post (Sept. 2013), I welcome a
scientific study of religion as a natural phenomenon. However, I would also welcome a critical
study of science. Does it have any
limitations when it comes to the pursuit of truth?
Merriam-Webster defines “science” as “knowledge about or
study of the natural world based on facts learned through observation and
experimentation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science). In human history this method has, indeed,
proved to be very reliable, enabling us to make predictions about the natural
world, the truth of which can then be tested.
It’s a fascinating field of study with many areas of specialization, and
I am personally grateful to be living in a world in which science enjoys such
broad acceptance and support. Not only
has it made our world more comfortable and convenient, not to mention extending
our life spans, it has opened our eyes to ever more wondrous aspects of the
natural world.
One could argue that science has also given us a lot of
headaches in, for example, the proliferation of powerful weapons of mass
destruction and ever more environmentally destructive machinery, technology,
and chemicals. However, it also offers
the means by which we can understand, anticipate, and mitigate the destructive
effects of its own application.
I deplore the ignorance of and rejection of science popular
among Creationists, global warming deniers, and Bible thumpers. I do question, however, whether science is
the only reliable source of human knowledge.
Is there a distinction between the “natural world” and the human world,
that is, between the natural sciences and the human sciences? Is one more “exact” and reliable than the
other? Is it just “facts” that
constitute knowledge or do facts require interpretation in order to be
meaningful? What are the rules of
interpretation? What interpretive
methods are used to make sense of the facts, and how reliable are they? Are all scientific hypotheses testable? If, by definition, science restricts itself
to observable phenomena in the natural, material world, how much can it tell us
about non-material phenomena, for example, love, virtue, courage, or, let’s
say, consciousness?
When it comes to non-material phenomena, science can only
theorize about it as an epiphenomenon having a material basis and cause. The origin and function of consciousness in
the human brain, for example, may well be true, but science has no way to
investigate other non-scientific theories on their own terms. In other words, science, by definition, rests
on the assumption that ultimate reality is material and has no way to evaluate
theories that assume a non-material reality is possible. Though it can answer many practical questions
and solve many practical problems, it cannot answer the “big” questions of
purpose and meaning in human existence or, for that matter, in the
universe. All it can do in that realm is
either deny the existence of meaning and purpose (without being able to prove
such non-existence) or say “We don’t know.”
We don’t know because we cannot observe it, measure it, quantify, or
test it. If independently existing
non-material reality exists, science can tell us nothing about it.
If the human sciences are less exact and reliable than the
so-called “hard” natural sciences, it would seem there is a huge dimension of
human experience that is well beyond the scientific method, for example, the
mysteries of identity and consciousness, meaning, purpose, values, how we
should live, morals and ethics.
In addition, science itself has undermines its own
certainty. Quantum physics has shown how
the observer alters the reality being observed, raising the question if we can
know reality as it exists independent of our own observation. Heisenberg’s
Uncertainty Principle suggests that what we observe is the result of the
conditions of the experiment we set up, again raising the question of whether
we can know reality as it exists independent of our own method of study.
One would think these demonstrable limitations of science
would instill some measure of humility in the scientifically minded when it
comes to making claims about non-material reality, but they are often as dogmatic
and self-righteous as religious fundamentalists when it comes to insisting on
the ultimate truth of their own world view.
Chapter 3 of Breaking
the Spell, "Why Good Things Happen," begins the study of religion as a natural phenomenon, as we might
expect, by making the case that everything humans value can be explained by
evolutionary theory and evidence.
Presumably our yearning for meaning, purpose, and validation as
creatures of worth in ultimate terms is the result of our evolutionary
history.
Keep in mind that I believe in evolutionary theory. It has a great deal more evidence to support
it than does Creationism. However, the
step from biological evolution to cultural evolution is a step into greater
uncertainty. As Dennett goes on to
“explain” religion in evolutionary terms, it remains to be seen whether he can
do so without running up against the limits of his own methodology. For example, even if he persuasively explains
the evolutionary origins of our values, will he be able to explain how we
determine the relative “worth” of those values?
Can science help us decide what we “ought” to do as well as help us
understand “why” we act in certain ways.
