Metanexus: Views. 2002.06.24. 2199 words "Imagine yourself a religious leader testifying before Congress on the issue of human cloning. What should you say and how should you say it? Should you establish your credibility by displaying your knowledge of the science of cloning? Should you perhaps avoid overt religious language altogether - e.g. talk of a 'soul' or talk of a 'creator' - in an attempt to put yourself on an even footing with the scientists who testify? If you were Steven Goldberg, author of Seduced by Science: How American Religion Has Lost Its Way, you would start by saying something like this: 'The first and most important point to understand here is that there is an essential non-material aspect to human beings.'" Thus Michael Lotti of the Trinity School at River Ridge in Minnesota begins his review of Seduced by Science: How American Religion Has Lost Its Way, by Steven Goldberg, New York: New York University Press, 1999. What does it mean to say that there is "an essential non-material aspect to human beings"? Language, for instance, is in some ways non-material, as are "looks". We think the communication has to do with widening eyes and arched brows, but how is it that we understand, sometimes in great detail, what the other person, the "looker" intends? But is this non-material or merely intangible? Moreover, are words like intangible, ineffable, ethereal, spiritual, and non-material really words at all, if they are describing phenomena that, by definition, are not discoverable in the material world? And this is indeed a grave question, for as religion turns toward science, it moves into a realm and a language where the most basic of religious experiences are inadmissible. As Lotti observes: "Goldberg's conclusion is an admonition. Religious thinkers (and leaders) should take the lead in demonstrating the limits of scientific inquiry. Furthermore, they should unapologetically bring their own non-materialist, religious perspective to bear on today's ethical problems: stem cell research, cloning, reproductive rights, physician assisted suicide, etc. For Goldberg, such issues of course demand a certain level of scientific expertise, but they demand even more a conscience shaped by ethical and religious reflection, neither of which is the fruit of scientific inquiry." Good reading! -- Stacey E. Ake =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Subject: Review of Seduced by Science: How American Religion Has Lost Its Way by Steven Goldberg From: Michael Lotti Email: Imagine yourself a religious leader testifying before Congress on the issue of human cloning. What should you say and how should you say it? Should you establish your credibility by displaying your knowledge of the science of cloning? Should you perhaps avoid overt religious language altogether - e.g. talk of a "soul" or talk of a "creator" - in an attempt to put yourself on an even footing with the scientists who testify? If you were Steven Goldberg, author of Seduced by Science: How American Religion Has Lost Its Way, you would start by saying something like this: "The first and most important point to understand here is that there is an essential non-material aspect to human beings." You are not alone if you are surprised by this. Yet in his provocative book, Steven Goldberg convincingly argues for making such a statement. Seduced by Science is essentially two related books bound together. Chapters 2-4 and 9-11 are about the limitations of science, the need for a distinctively religious voice in modern culture, and a criticism of religious thinkers who have been "seduced by science" and failed to offer such a distinctive voice. Chapters 5-8 are a demonstration, via the U.S. Constitution and the history of Constitutional interpretation, that a distinctive religious voice in the United States can, indeed, be heard as a public voice. Chapters 5-8 are an encouragement, as it were, for religious leaders to speak out boldly as religious leaders, which is why they are in the same book as the other chapters. For obvious reasons, the first set of chapters will probably be of most interest to the readers of Metanexus. Goldberg's book as a whole is convincing, but the chapters on science and religion are most compelling. He first argues that the materialistic outlook of science is only meaningful - and thus applicable -- in narrowly bound circumstances, but the success of modern science has led many to think that this narrow, materialistic outlook is in fact the best way to think about everything, including ethics. The result, Goldberg says, is that it is commonplace in public discourse to simply assume that a human being is essentially no more than his or her DNA or that all human behavior is reducible to brain chemistry. Goldberg clearly notes that science does not begin to touch on ethical or religious discourse, for it is concerned with the what of things and not the what ought to be. If, for example, scientists conclusively show that homosexual desires are the result of a genetic trait, nothing has been said one way or the other about what one ought to do with such desires. The scenario that Goldberg worries about is one where scientists, falsely recommended and unwisely accepted as ethical experts, completely dominate public discussion of vital issues. The way to avoid such a scenario, according to Goldberg, is to insist upon the simple truth that there is a non-material aspect to human beings. Thus, his sharpest criticism is for religious thinkers - i.e. the ones who are the inheritors of the non-materialist or dualist way of thinking about human beings - who take science too seriously. Goldberg says that by trying to accommodate the materialistic worldview of science in the name of winning a religious point, these thinkers end up losing the big battle over the material or non-material nature of human beings. The first targets of Goldberg's criticism are the so-called "creation scientists" and those who try to discern scientific evidence for God's existence. Goldberg acknowledges that the methodology and evidence used by such thinkers is usually quite suspect as genuine science, but his main point is subtler. By trying to buttress the Bible with science, these thinkers unwittingly acknowledge the superiority of the scientific worldview. Moreover, they ignore the fact that scientific conclusions are never permanent, but always subject to the latest evidence. Thus, they do not notice that by appealing to science, they have put the witness of the Bible on rather shaky ground. The simple truth for Goldberg is that the Bible was never written as a scientific textbook, so its powerful witness is, ironically enough, obscured by those who are so eager to defend it with science. The other target for Goldberg's criticism is the relatively new endeavor to study prayer scientifically. He again notes but does not focus on the problems with calling such an endeavor "science." His main concern is, again, that those who try to validate prayer via a scientific study indirectly proclaim the superiority of the scientific worldview. He makes another point, however, that is just as subtle and just as important. Focusing on prayer from a scientific perspective, he says, usually results in a shallow understanding of prayer, for it only looks at prayer as a therapeutic or healing device. But prayer in every major religious tradition is far more than that, he notes. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, for example, it is as much (if not more) about humility and other spiritual values than about obtaining a scientifically measurable result. Goldberg makes an excellent analogy with jazz music to drive home his point. If playing jazz music in hospitals had the effect of helping people heal faster, this would be worthy of study, but such study would intentionally ignore the history and aesthetics of jazz. Likewise, the narrow, materialistic interest in the "science of prayer" necessarily ignores the rich tradition and theology of prayer. But because it is so hard to see past the "halo" of science, the result of such study is a skewed interest in prayer and a misleading understanding of it. Goldberg's conclusion is an admonition. Religious thinkers (and leaders) should take the lead in demonstrating the limits of scientific inquiry. Furthermore, they should unapologetically bring their own non-materialist, religious perspective to bear on today's ethical problems: stem cell research, cloning, reproductive rights, physician assisted suicide, etc. For Goldberg, such issues of course demand a certain level of scientific expertise, but they demand even more a conscience shaped by ethical and religious reflection, neither of which is the fruit of scientific inquiry. I have hoped thus far to capture some of the clarity and forcefulness of Goldberg's thinking about science and religion. Read Seduced by Science yourself and you will find more. Especially noteworthy are Goldberg's nearly exhaustive citations: of the 219 pages in the book, 60 are devoted to notes and a bibliography. These are a gold mine for any new researcher in Goldberg's field and a sign that here, indeed, is a thinker who has done his homework. His only shortcoming in this regard is that he provides only one example of a religious group making a public statement but missing the opportunity to be, as he says, distinctively religious. If this truly is a wider problem in the public arena, it needs to be substantiated more. (If you are only interested in "science and religion," you may want to stop reading this review, for the rest is about law and public policy). The second "book" in Seduced by Science, which focuses on religion and law, is as important as the "book" about religion and science, but it is ultimately less successful. As an argument for the strong foundation for religious freedom in the U.S. Constitution, it is utterly convincing. Rebutting the alarmists who say that religion in the U.S.A. is under attack from a secularly-minded judiciary, Goldberg cites and explains several cases throughout U.S. history which demonstrate how the Constitution has and continues to protect religious speech and observance. He thus shows quite clearly how religious thinkers should trust in the courts to protect their right - and, according to Goldberg, their duty - to be distinctively religious. Goldberg runs into some trouble, however, when he argues that all law and public policy should be essentially secular. He does not argue, as is common, that the state needs to be protected from religion, but rather that religion needs to be protected from the state. Goldberg thinks that because of the plurality of beliefs in the U.S.A., publicly backed expressions of religion inevitably result in a watered-down form of "civil religion" which is, self-evidently for Goldberg, no substitute for the real thing. As a case in point, Goldberg opposes the use of vouchers in public education, for he thinks that too much government involvement in religious schools with result in a dilution of the religious character of these schools at the demand of the government. He notes that his position should not be understood to mean that there can be no religiously motivated laws or public policies, but that all such law and public policy must ultimately be given secular justification in the public arena. He cites (the now obsolete) Sunday closing laws as an example. There were clearly religious motivations for passing such laws, but the need for society to have a regular day of rest can be (and was) argued for without appealing to anything specifically religious. There is no inherent problem with Goldberg's position, but in his case, holding it is inconsistent. If he is right about law and public policy needing to be secular, it becomes difficult to see how the "distinctively religious voice" that he advocates can hope to have a say in this arena. For indeed, the public issues that concern religious thinkers the most are not like Sunday closing laws, where a secular justification for the law is easily found. With issues regarding human beings - like abortion and stem cell research, to name only a few - it is simply not possible to stake out a pro-life position, for example, without appealing to the transcendent or absolute value of human life, and "transcendent" and "absolute" here mean nothing more or less than "God-given." In Goldberg's legal framework, however, any appeal to transcendence would quickly be disallowed as "establishment of religion." It is as if religious thinkers have all the freedom in the world to speak, but no avenue for having any effective voice for shaping the society around them. Such an approach to law and public policy, it seems to me, is one of the root causes of secular, scientific worldview having the upper hand in our society, which is something that Goldberg rightly complains about. I do not pretend to have solutions to the problems associated with religion, law, and public policy. I only want to point out the inherent tension in Goldberg's position. It is a pity that Seduced by Science was written before George W. Bush became president, for the latest discussion of the intersection of religion and public policy is about Bush's proposal to allow private, religious organizations to receive public funds. We will have to wait for such an analysis from Goldberg. If Seduced by Science is any indication, the wait will be worth it. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online . The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors. To comment on this message, go to the browser-based forum at the bottom of all postings in the magazine section of our web site. Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to Dr. Stacey Ake, Associate Editor of Metanexus at . Copyright notice: Columns may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science ". Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 by William Grassie.