Lib, I think that the effect of your hypothetical would be much, much more likely to lead to the disappearance of most organized religions than of science. If people were to experience direct, physically measurable divine intercession in their lives through a simple practicable mechanism, do you think they’d be more or less likely to pursue that relationship with God through the middleman of the church?
I think a true scientist is open to any ideas wherever they come from. You can come up with a theory that Jesus pushes apples to the ground, but there isn’t any method to prove such a thing and thus is of no scientific interest. On the other hand, if preliminary scientific studies show that prayed upon patients recover better than non-prayed upon patients, then of course that would be grounds for more research.
The statement that I have the hardest time with is “Of course, I would, on principle, oppose government funding of this or any other research.” Whatever for? This would be one of those cases where no private party would have the motivation to conduct the research, so in the absence of a private profit motive it devolves to the government to underwrite research for the common good. Are the drug companies going to fund research that might lessen the demand for drugs? Will hospitals fund research that might cut their income? I doubt it. So in the case where no private entity has the means and/or motivation to do research for the common good, why shouldn’t government step in?
Science is already political. It’s not like the scientific establishment in this country is some remote bastion of truth untouched by human passion. What gets studied, what grants get granted, the way research is done and received…there’s politics in all that. Any time you get more than one or two people involved in anything, politics comes into play.
I think you’re begging the question. We faithful have experienced direct, physically measurable divine intercession in our lives for thousands of years. For us, the OP would be science catching up.
For the Noncoercion Principle that I cited in the OP.
I do agree, but I’m really talking about a political institution here, not merely the infestation of politics. It is the combination of political power and dogmatic absolutism that most frightens me and will, I believe, destroy science rather than religion because both are antithetical to the method of science.
Not the kind which demonstrate a repeatable causal link between a specific faith-based activity on the part of one subject and specific measurable results in a different subject.
Not trying to jerk your chain; in fact, I used that language knowing that faith produces changes in the subjective reality of the faithful. Successful intercessory prayer is a different animal, producing changes outside of the petitioner’s subjective reality.
Well, we could argue that but I won’t drag it out since it could go way off topic. I’m still surprised that there is so little defense of the first amendment. I didn’t think America was quite that vulnerable to collapsing quite so fast. If government sponsored intercessory prayer can be rationalized this easily, then I think government interference in a free press won’t be far behind, again as I said not for slippery slope but because the exact same rationalization could apply to the press. All that would be required is a study showing anti-American rhetoric as a danger to the general welfare. And that’s the end of that. Just because science confirms something does not mean that the thing it confirms is no longer a matter of faith. Any arbitrary scientific finding can be interpreted as having religious significance — like the Big Bang, for example.
All? You say it like it would be simple to control for all possible factors and conclude that anti-american rhetoric is the source of corellating danger. To say that would be difficult would be an understatement. To conclusively link prayer with health would be equally if not more daunting.
Sure it does. All a scientific confirmation says is that ‘we have observed this phenomenon in all tested circumstances’. They don’t have faith that they observed it…they observed it!
Well, no, because the Lemon test is just a test for the religious segment of the first Amendment (and for what its worth, I’m not sure it would pass the third prong of the Lemon test anyway…it might be seen as an entanglement.
And the Supreme Court has already ruled that anti-American rhetoric may be made illegal. In Schenk v. US, the Supreme Court ruled that the arrest of people passing out pamphlets opposing the draft was constitutional.
I would disagree with your statement. I wouldn’t define myself as an agnostic (be it an agnostic as in “it’s impossible to know whether there is a god” or as in “I’m not sure”). I’m most definitely a “hard” atheist, as in "God ** does not ** exist. That is , ** until proven otherwise ** . Having another stance, like "God doesn’t exist even if proven otherwise would only be denial of reality.
I might be an “antireligionist” since I tend to think we should better off if we get rid of all these silly myths, but being an “antitheist” would make few sense, since I would need to accept the existence of a god at the first place to be “anti-god”. An “antitheist” (if I understand correctly what you mean) would be someone who, in your alternate universe where the existence of god is proven, would oppose him. Satan would be the ultimate “antitheist”.
That’s a logical consequence of your assumption. If the interactions between god and the material world can be studied and analysed in a scientific way, with falsifiable hypothesis, etc…Then, theology becomes a scientific field, like said astrophysics.
.
Perhaps it’s due to your permanent concern about the restriction of freedom which are or could be imposed by any government.
If you’re affraid of it, then it means that you’re accepting only part of your hypothesis (your strong hypothesis : religion X is proven to be true). You’re assuming that it’s giving ammunition to an anti-scientific religion which itself wouldn’t stay on a firmer ground than our current religions. “I hold for (unproven) religion X, and according to our beliefs, I’m going to eradicate contradictory beliefs”. But :
-This religion isn’t anymore a mere belief : it’s a provable truth. So, refusing to teach contradictory beliefs in school, for instance, would be similar to refusing to teach creationnism in school know. A perfectly sensible position.
-This religion wouldn’t have any need to eradicate science, since science would back it. If the scientific community discovered tomorrow that the world was actually created in six days, and that the flood actualy happened, etc…do you believe that christian fundamentalists would still have an issue with science? At the contrary, they would encourage it as much as possible, in order to fight ignorance…and convert unbelievers.
Now, in the case of your “weak” hypothesis (science merely proves that prayer is medicaly effective), then indeed there’s an actual risk. In a deeply religious country, a particular religion could “hijack” this discovery and use it to state “see! prayer works! it proves we were right all along (though of course it wouldn’t, at this point)! let’s get rid of this heatens and rule the country according to our god-given rules!!” .
It could be an argument to try to transform undecided people, or “soft” theists into “hardliners”. It could help them, say, winning an election and begin to work on changing laws, etc…to fit their religious agendas. They could still decide to ignore the parts of scientific knowledge which contradict their tenets : “the” science which proves that prayer works is “correct” science which must be taught in schools, but “the” science which proves that the earth is 4 bilions years old is “false” science and must not be taught or founded.
However, it seems to me this risk is very limited. First, there would be plenty of people who would argue that it doesn’t prove the existence of a god, but also believers would still argue amongst themselves as to which religion is the correct one. Given a modicum general belief that it’s a good thing that church and state are separated, I doubt it would result in a major political switch.
Anyway, one could you do? Forbid scientific research in this area on the basis that it could eventually lead to a religion becoming more proeminent, hence being a threat for laicity? If you don’t forbid research, then there’s no more reason to refuse to publicaly fund this particular field than any other else (that is : no reason to fund it according to your political stance, every reason to do so according to mine)
Yes, but that’s only a belief. What if it’s proven that prayers only help treating illness when they take place in a catholic church? Would you not reconsider your belief?
I don’t think they would realy “take over” science. Religion wouldn’t have to take over science if it’s already on its side. But governement and church would likely merge, indeed, assuming that a given religion is proven to be correct. We would have a kind of Caliphate, most probably. And actually, it would be quite sensible, as an adaptation of society to a new understanding of the reality (as I stated in my previous posts).
Now, there could indeed be an issue if for instance, science proves that there’s a god, or an undetermined number of gods, but can’t state exactly which religion is correct, if any. Then , there could a radicalization of religious feelings, and various religions in various places could try to take over both science and state in order to “prove” their stance and to impose it. But even in this case, it’s not obvious that it would turn out this way.
Still, I don’t think you’ve any right to prevent people from knowing the truth (or trying to establish it) , on the basis of the remote possibility that it could have harmful consequences on the institutions, and in turn on freedom. or else, you could as well ban all religions or all political parties which, according to you, could be wiling to implement harmful policies.
And if you don’t think that you can forbid the study of “prayerology”, on what basis should this scientific field be treated differently than any other? And in particular shouldn’t be funded if other fields of research are?
Finally, I would add that there are many scientific field which impact on religious beliefs. The only difference is that currently, this impact tends to be negative, while in your example it’s positive. But geology, for instance, tends to disprove fundamentalist christians religious beliefs. Hence indirectly favors other beliefs. Should we stop funding geology, too? Cosmology could even have a greater impact. For instance, the catholic church tends to claim that the big-bang theory backs its stance about creation. It’s not so direct and obvious than in your prayer example, but still. Should we stop funding research in cosmology because the pope thinks it furthers its cause?
You know, you’re right. In Libertarian’s scenario, the validity of prayer is proven via legitimate science, there is no good reason to stand against it. As Pochacco said
I’m strongly in favor of the separation of church and state as layed out in the First Amendment and interpreted by the Supreme Court and other rulings.
I’d be strongly in favor of research into this hypothetical effect of prayer.
Those views are not at all contradictory. If science found intercessory prayer to be effective, it would no longer be only a matter of faith; it would also be a matter of science. Just because a religion says something is true, that doesn’t mean that scientists can’t acknowledge that it’s true if science proves it to be true, or that the government can’t fund research into it.
The Old Testament says “thou shalt not kill.” Does that mean the government shouldn’t imprison murderers, because they’re acknowledging that Christianity and Judaism (and any other religion with a similar rule) are correct? Of course not. They’re acknowledging that something those religions believe turned out to be a good idea.
So now I’ll address the version of your OP that would actually make for a sticky issue with the First Amendment:
Scientific research proves that one aspect of a religion is true (the effect of prayer, for example).
- Should the government fund research to determine if the rest of a given religion is also true? I say hell no. If the private sector determines that 60% of one religion is true, then maybe. I can’t think that hypothetically, since I can’t believe it would ever happen.
- Should we be required by law to practice a religion if it’s proven to be true? If one religion were somehow scientifically proven to be true, then we should be required to follow the parts that would result in harm to others if we ignored them, but the rest of it should be up to us. Heck, you’re free to believe the world is flat if you want. That doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t fund research that proves you wrong.
To sum up: It would take a lot for me to throw out the First Amendment. It would take a whole lot more for me to throw out science. Apparently, the order is reversed for you.
Science does not prove anything to be true. It can only confirm that something is not false. If scientific tests indicate that prayer helps people heal, all it means is that the proposition that prayer cannot help people heal is false. However, the converse is not necessarily true. The tests do not (and cannot) prove that prayer must help people heal. Thus, despite what science confirms, it is a matter of faith whether to pray.
Science does not deal in absolutes. Government and religion do. Their merging is the end of science. When science becomes dogma, it is indistinguishable from religion.
So, if science shows that taking a pill can speed recovery, is taking the pill a matter of faith? What is the difference between a prayer and a pill if they are both equally supported by science?
And I really don’t get your idea that science doesn’t prove things true. Maybe in some wacky philosophical version of “true” but not in my pedestrian, everyday version of true. It is true that gravity exists and follows specific laws. It is true that mixing an acid and a base will result in a reaction. It is true that giving a person medicine will aid in recovery.
Science bases theories on observation. The observation and ability to reproduce it is the most important part. You have faith in things that can’t be observed or reproduced. What science proves true is that something has been observed in all tested circumstances. Science does not pretend there will never be a circumstance where a theory is proven false.
But it isn’t always. Sometimes it does no good at all, and sometimes it even makes things worse. And it is true that gravity exists, but that’s because logic and not science confirms it. Mathematics, and not science, explains how it works. Science doesn’t even know what it is. All science does is confirm whether any particular prediction about an observed gravitational event is or is not false. But even if it is false, that doesn’t make its converse true. Science can’t discover truth because if it could, then for example no predictions about ballistics trajectories before Einstein would have worked. Yet they did. Time isn’t really absolute the way Newton thought it was, but that didn’t matter because the acceleration rate of cannon balls did not require relativistic accuracy. Please consider the fact that if science discovered truth, no scientific theory confirmed by observation would be ammendable — it’s theory would be “true”. That state of affairs would make it indistinguishable from religion.