Religion, Science and Politics

Nature Coast Unitarian Universalists

July 30, 2006

A Sermon By Bill Chess, a member

Last month, in titling today’s talk I chose “Religion, Science and Politics” as the topic. I figured that that would give me a lot of flexibility for the final version. But at the same time, the first two are bound together in a lot of books and articles lately and as a result politics has also reared its ugly head into the fray.

I also felt the need to be able to be right up to date with all the goings on in the news.

As many of you know, Muriel and I went on a five week vacation “up North”. We hit my old stamping ground, Rockland County, New York and stayed with various old friends. Art Francis and several other resident philosophers had been kicking around the subject of Religion and Science. Art gave me a preprint of something he was planning to present at the First Unitarian Society of Rockland County.

When I got back I found that Joe Wetzel had given a talk along similar (but different) lines while I was away. Joe gave me a copy of his talk-, which, incidentally, I have put on our web site. If you want to read or re-read it, just go to www.ncuu.org and click on “archives”.

There are several books out, some examples of which are: “Religion is not about God” by Loyal Rue, “Molecules of Emotion” by Candice Pert, “Science and Religion” by Paul Kurtz and many others- it sounds like a new fad.

I’m not about to review any of the aforementioned. Nor will I take acceptation to any. But they all make good jumping off places.

First let me point out that there is a difference between the “Scientific Method” and “Science.” The Scientific Method is a protocol for examination of facts as they are presented to us and forming hypotheses based upon the information that may be tested in any number of various ways.

“Science” is something else again. Science is a political entity. It is a large body of knowledge allegedly built up by applying the scientific method to information, as we know it, testing the information and forming conclusions based upon objective observation. However often the observations are more subjective than objective and are fiercely defended by their proponents.

And often the conclusions are capable of being interpreted in several ways.

Examples of this political nature of Science can be found in the numerous instances where good, valid research has been turned down for publication by committees of reviewers because the conclusions go against the “known” Science of the day, only to be vindicated sometimes years later when the true facts become known.

It is also exemplified by the difficulty that some graduate students find in getting grants or sponsors to pursue topics that all the “experts” say are invalid- often because of personal positions to be protected.

Now lets do the same thing to Religion. There is “Religion” and there is “Organized Religion”. Religion is the attempt by the individual to understand his/her place in the universe, and how one may interact with that universe. It may take on many different aspects but is usually subject to some tests by the individual.

The sources of ideas may come from philosophical or religious texts, sermons, newspaper articles or discussion with others.

The tests they are subject to are obtained by introspection or by comparing to what is logical in the context of the over all environment.

If the individual is capable of expressing his/her ideas to others and convincing them of their validity, they may take up the ideas and “run” with them. At least at first these ideas have to make sense to the receiver. That is sense in relation to what the receiver already “knows”. I use “Knows” in quotes.

Very often, just as with “Science”, the new ideas are rejected by the establishment and have little chance of promulgating. But occasionally something makes sense to enough people that a new movement is started.

I find many similarities between the scientific method applied to the physical world and religion applied to the world of the mind.

Organized Religion is something else again. The organization usually takes on the conclusions and suppositions of an individual who has been able to communicate him/her self to a body of other people. The organization then proceeds to rearrange those conclusions and suppositions for the convenience, profit and aggrandizement of those in power. This is often done, at least at first, with a sincere wish to follow those precepts.

Today there are many with that sincere wish- I respect it. But there are many who choose to attempt to impose these ideas on large numbers of people and swiftly move into the political realm in that attempt.

So Science and organized religion have much in common.

And the scientific method and religion have much in common.

Observation may involve using the ordinary senses – sight, hearing, smelling, touch etc. But is also can mean introspection. Observing how one reacts to ideas and how one communicates those ideas.

We do have many Scientists and many Philosophers who think for themselves. They both begin with observation of one kind or another and come to considered conclusions based upon the facts as they observe them.

I’m not about to bash the entire scientific community, which I have described by the single word “Science” but I have to point out its faults and pitfalls.

I will refer to a recent editorial in the opinion section of the St. Pete Times. It is by Jennifer Washburn- originally posted in the L.A. Times. It is titled “The Best Minds Money Can Buy.”

I’ll try and boil it down for you: quote:

Most of us place enormous faith in our universities. We trust that they are autonomous, independent institutions committed to education, scholarship, academic freedom and the production of knowledge free from the influence of special interest groups. Right?

Wrong. In the last 25 years, the United States has given birth to a market-model university, one where professors increasingly work "for hire." Just last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that a major academic study—which found that antidepressants were safe and effective for pregnant women—was tainted by undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Apparently, although the study itself was financed by the federal government, most of its 13 authors—including many prominent academics—also served as paid consultants to manufacturers of antidepressants. None of these financial ties were made public.

Reports like this have proliferated in the last decade. Today, it is common for professors to moonlight as consultants for drug firms. They receive generous stipends to join company advisory boards. For a nominal fee—anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000—some professors will even agree to be named as authors on journal articles ghostwritten by the drug industry and published without disclosure of company involvement.

It's not just medical professors who have such conflicts. The new commercialism also involves law and business professors and academics in many scientific disciplines. It even affects administrators, such as Chancellor Marye Anne Fox of UC San Diego, who is a director at three corporations (two medical firms and a chemical company). In the last year alone they paid her cash and stock worth at least $339,260, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.

Industry money represents a small percentage of overall university research funding (the bulk of which comes from the federal government), but the number of professors who receive supplemental income from industry is continuing to grow. Last week, the San Jose Mercury News reported that more than a third of Stanford University's top administrators, department heads and other leaders have outside financial interests related to their research. These include stock options, royalties, consulting fees, etc.

Even more worrisome, seven of the 10 faculty members who sit on Stanford's conflict-of-interest committee—charged with oversight—have financial connections to medical companies.

Consider Exxon Mobil's unusual relationships with Stanford. In 2002, Stanford signed a 10-year, $225-million deal with Exxon and other energy companies to fund a Global Climate and Energy Project, or GCEP. At the time, Exxon Mobil was pushing the U.S. government to reject any mandatory curbs on greenhouse gases; it also continued to question whether human use of fossil fuels causes global warming, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. Instead, it called for more research.

Shortly after the deal was signed, Exxon ran advertisements on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times celebrating its research alliance with the "best minds" at Stanford. One ad suggested that the scientific debate about global warming is ongoing: "Although climate has varied throughout Earth's history from natural causes, today there is a lively debate about...the climate's response to the presence of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

Endquote

The scientific method is not in question- it does work. But biased interpretations of experimental results can easily enter into the picture. Of course that is why peer reviews are so useful. Scientific methods used and conclusions derived from them are subject to review of others working in the same area. But built in biases of the reviewers may well mess up the situation.

Some biases may come, as of above because of economics or politics and some may come from others trying to protect their own hard earned body of research from being fried by new ideas.

I think that organized religion as I have described it is in exactly the same boat. Biases are held by those in a position to influence numbers of people. Some of those biases are created by sheer economics (there is a great deal of money to be made- especially in the “mega-churches”.)

Some of those biases are held by people trying to protect their own hard earned religious education, even in the light of new research and ideas.

Also there are strong attempts to influence others through legislation and propaganda- the political raising its ugly head.

On the other hand there are plenty of people who have come to conclusions basically in keeping with their own understanding of the universe and their place in it. They are open to the thoughts of others, and even though they have sincere beliefs are willing to accept that others too may have sincere beliefs. They remain truly religious and do not try to control others through political activity.

Ok, so much for my first topic- now for a second topic- same title but completely different.

I have spoken before about the encoding in DNA and how the complete instructions for building a human being are contained in a single strand of DNA contained in each of our cells. Within that code are also the instructions for using portions of that same code to create arms, legs, teeth etc.

I have likened it to the much simpler build up of information with computers, beginning with the microprocessor chip which allows a programmer to develop programs which other programmers may use to ultimately build up word processors, spread sheets, quicken and all sorts of other useful computer applications.

Actually the microprocessor chip is built from a pattern of microscopic wires and silicon junctions, which were designed by people- who may not understand how to use those higher-level things.

I think this is a very important concept- that the designers of objects to be used by others may have little or no experience in using those objects.

To put is on a really simple level. Suppose someone has a wood and metal shop and builds a simple garden hoe. That same person may not be able to properly use that hoe. He may not be able to tell the difference between a weed and a carrot or flower and may end up destroying the garden instead of weeding it.

On the other hand, the gardener may not have the knowledge or ability to work with wood and metal to create the hoe.

As Joe Wetzel told us a few weeks ago, all the materials which compose our immediate universe- carbon, oxygen, silicon, iron etc. are all produced from the center of exploding stars (supernova) and are ultimately derived from hydrogen, the simplest atom- one proton, one electron.

As I see it, it goes much deeper than that. I think the pattern that specifies the construction of complex atoms from the simple hydrogen atom also exists somewhere. We just haven’t figured out that one yet.

It appears to me that everything we can observe in the universe has a pattern- that is a body of information- for creating it.

Also whatever thoughts originating in our minds are there because we have the matter structure in our brains and bodies to store and process those thoughts. And that matter structure is a result of pattern- information stored somewhere.

And if we go down deep enough through that logic route, we may hit the concept of “God”.

It’s possible that God knows how to construct the universe but has no ability to run it once it gets going.

But going down even deeper we may find that something greater than “God” has the pattern for creating “God”.

Since it has been several years since I told this one, I think I should be able to use it again:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "what is the tortoise standing on?" "You are very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady, "But it's turtles all the way down!"

Indeed- maybe it is Gods all the way down.