Part III.
So we have a dilemma. In Part I we explored the cognitive spaces occupied by science and religion and learned that they are different. So different, in fact, that they cannot be combined without doing serious damage to both. In both Parts I and II we discussed what is commonly known, that science and religion are often in conflict and in Part II we discussed how holding opposing views creates psychic conflict and unease. When we experience cognitive dissonance we will perform impressive cognitive gymnastics to erase or minimize this unpleasant experience. At the same time, there are a multitude of reasons why rejecting either science or religion is bad, perhaps for society (the role of religion in society is a complex issue that I hope to address in a future post) but definitely for the individual. A dilemma indeed.
Does a solution exist for this difficult situation? Before we get there, there is one more important question to explore. Is it even possible for a person living in today’s world to actually reject and discard science or religion?
Let’s discuss science first. In my first posts in this blog I asked: “what is science and why does it make us fight so much”? This may seem trivial but if you haven’t read it I recommend you do so now. In brief, science is a fairly recent invention of a method of learning that has proven itself successful above all other methods. All science works the same. We observe the world. We build a story, a supposition, or hypothesis to explain what we have observed. Then, we subject that hypothesis to verifiable prediction (experimentation). If our explanation succeeds in predicting results in various tests over and over, then it becomes a theory we accept and we move forward. Because all science works the same, it is meaningless to say I accept this scientific theory but not that one. It is no different than saying I accept 2 + 2 = 4 but I reject 4/2 = 2. Both of these equations are proven by the same methodology. We can’t rationally accept one and reject the other. Same with science. If I say I accept special relativity but I reject the theory of evolution, I am being illogical and irrational. It is, of course, fine to say that some implications of quantum theory are troubling to me and I hope that the future will bring a resolution to those aspects that conflict with our everyday experience, but it is not rational to say that I don’t like it and therefore I don’t accept it.
Can a rational person who lives in a 21st century society reject science? Not really. Not knowingly. If someone rejects the theory of evolution, and then is admitted to a hospital with a serious infection and takes an antibiotic, that person is a hypocrite. Infectious disease doctors prescribe certain antibiotics and withhold others on the basis of our understanding of evolution. They do this to extend the effective life of important medicines and use sophisticated methods to monitor the evolution of antibiotic resistance in their communities and in their hospitals. Similarly, many people who “reject” important scientific tenets nevertheless are happy to allow the laws of relativity to guide them on their driving routes via the gps built into their trusty smart phones. If a religious fundamentalist rejects science but then boards and flies in a jetliner that person has forsaken any claim to rationality. By entrusting one’s life and safety to Boeing or Airbus a person accepts Bernoulli’s principle, the law of fluid dynamics that allows airplane wings to produce lift and makes jetliner travel possible. A person cannot accept Bernoulli’s principle, and pretend to be rational while rejecting the laws of genetics. The more fundamentalist one is, the more troubled the person is likely to be by hypocrisy, yet the more likely it is that that same person will be forced to be hypocritical by arbitrarily accepting some science and rejecting other science! Is it fair to call someone a hypocrite if they are ignorant of the science? Perhaps not. However, many people who profess to reject science are purposefully ignorant and this cannot absolve them of hypocrisy. In summary, It is impossible for a person to live in any version of the modern world and to reject science without being hypocritical.
Can a person reject religion? On the surface, this appears to be an easier logical proposition. There are many self-proclaimed atheists among us and they live perfectly happy lives. But, a deeper consideration raises difficulties. Most people are familiar with the aphorism “there are no atheists in foxholes” though its origin is unclear (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes). Why do most people believe that the threat of danger or death makes people more religious? In times of stress, we are desperate for relief. While we may do what we can to ensure a successful outcome, we are also aware that the future is not entirely within our control. What more can we do? Is my fate to purely depend on chance? Is there no meaning in t he world? It is reassuring to believe that a benevolent power exists that we can appeal to for help. Believing that all is not lost, that a power outside of ourselves may protect or help us is comforting. Hope is powerful and reassuring. But, is the aphorism actually true? Research on this question is somewhat conflicting but suggests that some forms of stress do increase religious feelings and behaviors. For example, while a traumatic experience may make us less religious afterwards, experiencing a trauma that directly involves death does indeed appear to increase religious behavior (https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/tra0000430). In a laboratory setting, providing an implicit death anxiety (as opposed to an explicit one) increased religious belief in both believers and. non-believers (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53578960e4b0cc61351ba675/t/58caaf93f5e231f0df8d0552/1489678236872/Jackson+et+al.+2017+-+Implicit+death+anxiety.pdf).
We are over 300 years past the beginning of the Enlightenment yet atheists remain a relatively small proportion of the population. A recent Pew Research survey provided some interesting data on atheists in the US (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/). Self-described atheists make up only ~4% of the US population, but even among this group about one in five people believed in a “higher power”! The degree to which religious and non-religious people fully-believe in a higher power makes this topic complicated ( https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/american-atheists-religious-european-christians/560936/). Nevertheless, it is important to note that all, or nearly all, societies believe in a higher power. The psychological drive to do so, while poorly understood, is very powerful. While it may not be impossible for some people to entirely escape from religious belief, it is not something that the vast majority of people can do completely.
Indeed, the dilemma is real and there is no way out. We cannot mix religious and scientific thought without inflicting violence on both. We cannot reject science without being hypocrites, and the same is true for most, and perhaps all people when it comes to rejecting religion. What are we to do?
In a famous quote written in 1936, the novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald provided a brilliant insight into both human cognition and the human condition. He wrote: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function”. This quote highlights the difficulty of reasoning opposite ideas. I will go even further by stating: it is impossible for a human being to avoid being hypocritical, even though the cognitive dissonance thus induced will tend in the direction of reducing hypocrisy at the expense of rationality. What I mean is this. Humans are fated to be drawn in different directions. Our cognition is not just logical and rational, but at least equal parts emotional and instinctual (driven by poorly understood evolutionary drives). Our brains are not unified, single machines with simple purposes but complex organs that drive us, sometimes simultaneously, in different directions. We are driven to accumulate (power, status, material goods) but also driven to share. We are driven to bravery but also to self-preservation. When we chose one over the other we often feel bad even if we are, overall, satisfied with our choice. Rational thought, moral instincts, evolutionary drives often push us in opposite directions. We will chose one direction, then try to rationalize it because not to do so causes internal conflict and psychic pain. We are fated to be hypocrites, and also fated to try to rationalize this away.
I hope to say more about this in a future post, but for now, consider this. The religious science-rejector is hypocritical by accepting some science and rejecting other science. Doing so causes hypocrisy within a single cognitive enterprise (science). The science-believer who attends religious services and modifies his religious beliefs to fit his scientific thought (God didn’t really make all species 6,000 years ago) is also hypocritical within a single cognitive (and social) enterprise (religion). The better path is to admit the dilemma: I cannot, or will not, reject either science or religion. I recognize that they are incompatible but I will not damage both. I may be hypocritical, but I will maintain whole the beauty of both science and religion. Can admitting the conflict decrease the dissonance? I don’t know if this question has been tested. I do know that it works for me. So, don’t be afraid. Admit the conflict, and hold both of these ideas in mind at the same time. Say, I admit that they are in conflict but I wish to benefit and enjoy both.