We have thousands of human-written stories, discussions, interviews and reviews from today through the past 20+ years. Find them here:

Search the site Search

Musings on Science and Classical Music (thanks to Al's thread)

April 10, 2008 at 11:39 AM

I got a Ph.D. in Neuroscience because I have always been interested in how the human brain works. I work now in a lab at MIT so I see and work with other scientists all day, all the time. Being steeped in that environment, I guess I'm a little shocked to realize (again) how science and scientific language appear to the non-scientists in this group in some of the discussion threads.

The aspect that surprises (and saddens) me the most is how dismissive and negative folks seem to be about scientific explanations for natural phenomena. Somehow, according to this view, science is dry, it's dead, it doesn't feed the soul. Similarly, I've always been somewhat taken aback by the contempt that much religious language shows for the material world: according to that view, this world is mired in selfishness and greed, it's "fallen." It's so irredeemably awful and bad that other worlds beyond our "mere" understanding have to be postulated to prevent us from sinking into the pit of despair.

Richard Dawkins, an atheist and a scientist, tried to take some of this on in his book, _Unweaving the Rainbow_, not entirely successfully from my point of view (and that of many reviewers). But one of his arguments I do remember quite clearly from the book: he says he gets these letters from people all the time wondering how he can be so sad, or angry, or pessimistic, or negative, or whatever--when he in fact is not that way at all. He's not the most tactful writer, and he likes to provoke. But even in his interviews he comes across as prickly, yes, maybe not the kind of guy you'd want to have over for dinner (or maybe you would), but also not wallowing in some kind of cesspool of despair and hatred the way he is often portrayed in the media.

At MIT too, I meet many non-theistic scientists on a daily basis. Geeky? Sure. Quirky? You bet. But overall, optimistic, generous, friendly, and hopeful about the human condition and its potential for improvement by our own efforts. Right here in the material, tangible world. Music also thrives in such an environment. The little violin- and piano-playing math geniuses grow up and work in a place like this. The beauty of the natural world and its laws finds expression in a multitude of different ways.

Scientific communication is important to me, and I take this as an example of how much work scientists have to do to make their work and worldview more accessible. There are a lot of parallels between the state of science and the state of classical music, as described in the other threads. With science, as with classical music, there is a sometimes earned perception that its practitioners are dried up, old, and out of touch, concerned with arcane trivia that don't matter to most people. The challenges of making both topics interesting and relevant to people who aren't highly trained in the practice are going to be with us for a long, long time.

"The aspect that surprises (and saddens) me the most is how dismissive and negative folks seem to be about scientific explanations for natural phenomena."

To me it seems that this is *mostly* a US American phenomenon. It is rather surprising (or puzzling) to most people in most other corners of the world, too. And that is regardless of whether they have scientific training or not.

Wonderful blog.
I suppose most of it has to do with human pride. Many, when their beliefs are called in to question or shattered by scientific theory or evidence, are quick to simply discount it because it conflicts with their beliefs. Rather than suffer their pride and admit to incorrect assumptions in order to come closer to the "truth" (whatever it may be at that time based on current findings), they stick with the mystical.

I'd say the main problem is that most people (Americans especially in my dealings) hold very little adoration for the search of truth and knowledge, and are not willing to go through the process of disproving and proving their own beliefs in order to find more concrete ones.

You both make a good point that this is especially an American phenomenon. As reported in a 2006 article in Science, Miller and others asked adults the question, "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals, and respondents answered true, false, or not sure/don't know. Thirty-four countries were included in the survey and only about 40% of American adults answered true. About an equal number answered false, with the rest being not sure. Of the 34 countries, only Turkey had fewer "true" responses.

What has taken me a long time to understand is that most people apparently must have a good experience with religious myths when they are children. So they grow up wanting the stories to be true, or finding some emotional goodness that feels true and right in those myths even if the details don't all exactly make intellectual sense. But to me, many religious myths didn't make emotional sense from the start. I didn't want the stories of Noah's Flood, or the sacrifice of Abraham and Isaac, or Job, or Jesus on the cross to be true, even when I first heard them and wasn't equipped to tell one way or another whether they were or not. The stories were confusing and creepy, populated by frightening, capricious characters who did scary things. People got hurt and killed, lives were destroyed. So learning about metaphor and myth and putting them in that context was a relief and a joy. On the other hand, the stories of vast geological time, of dinosaurs, of Darwin's finches and the Panda's thumb, didn't need so much deconstruction and just sheer emotional work to understand or want to get close to. Dinosaurs are creepy and mean, but unlike characters in religious myth, they're safe too, because they're extinct.

Great writing, Karen! I think one of the difficulties with religious faith is simply that by definition, it cannot be explained or understood. Only felt or 'known'. Any discourse, then, is pretty much useless, since the argument just gets circular - and that's with those who are willing to investigate this from a 'scientific' angle.

I've had the privilege of having these discussions with several very intelligent religious men (yes, it seems to be a first-date topic for me...), and must say that my own leanings fall quite definitely in the same category as your scientist friends. Someone asked me once what I did believe in, if I didn't believe in God. I had to think, but then realised it was the human condition. What we as a species are capable of - art, science, music, nature, and more.

There's nothing dry or miserable about asking questions. And I think religion often blocks this exploration by providing ready-made answers, in the form of doctrine - or even dogma. I think it's a easy way out.

You mentioned you attend church - I'd be interested in your own views on unifying your religion and science.

Oh, by the way, I knew I forgot something. One of the (many) classes I wish I'd taken while I was at McGill was a course entitled 'The Bible as Literature', taught by a very well-respected Chaucer professor, who was also involved in Catholic Studies, if I remember correctly. The course I did take with him sparked a serious interest in mediaeval philosophy, and particularly in the attempts to unify Aristotelian thought with the doctrines of the mediaeval Church, and the difficulties that arose. It really isn't that simple.
Megan--

I attend a Unitarian-Universalist church. Similar in name but very different in belief from the Unification church. (I always add that corollary since one of my husband's German friends who had never heard of UU mistook the two!)

The website has a pretty good description: "Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion with Jewish-Christian roots. It has no creed. It affirms the worth of human beings, advocates freedom of belief and the search for advancing truth, and tries to provide a warm, open, supportive community for people who believe that ethical living is the supreme witness of religion."

For someone who has an essentially non-theistic outlook, I'm pretty involved in the church. For example, I just became the co-chair of the church Religious Education committee. I was a member of the choir, too, until this year when I joined an orchestra instead and only had time for one rehearsal a week and so had to quit the choir. I have performed in church a couple of times a year on violin or viola.

Reconciling science and faith feels like a bigger topic than I can take on right now, especially in a blog, but it's something that I think about quite a lot. I feel like music plays a big role in that process, at least for me. It seems like one arena where everyone can come together, or at least work together in tolerance, regardless of their religious beliefs, their scientific knowledge, or lack thereof.

Albert Einstein was a hero of mine when I was growing up, as both a scientist and a violinist. His vision of the universe as a lord who is subtle but not malicious is one that always made both emotional and intellectual sense to me. In contrast to the many other visions of the universe (or the Lord) available.

Great blog, Karen. I worked as a scientist for many years, even did some research in neuroscience. Most nonscientists I've spoken to believe that science is dull because it's all black and white, yes or no, true or false. They don't understand the nature or process of science, which are both very dynamic, stimulating, and even stimulating to the mind. Part of the problem in our culture is that thoughts (brain) and emotions (heart) are considered to be mutually exclusive. If you're a scientist, you're a nerd with no feelings and no knowledge of or interest in the world outside of science, and you can't interact with other people. You read too many books and go to too few parties. You're the rational/analytical type. If you're anything but a scientist, you're emotional, warm and fuzzy, a tree hugger, etc. You're the sensitive and caring type. Everyone must be pigeonholed into one of these personality types. Most of the nonscientists are not aware that a large proportion of scientists, physicians, and mathematicians are amateur musicians or music lovers. What about the harmony of the spheres? I'm so d*mn irritated by the large number of people who insist on putting human beings into one or the other category. Personally, I've had too much contact with nonscientists who assume that I'm cold because I was a scientist.
The best reconciliation of science and religion that I'm aware of was written several centuries ago by St. Thomas Aquinas. He believed that God reveals Himself through nature, so to study nature is to study. He even used lunar eclipses as one argument for the existence of God.
Karen, thanks for your heartfelt blog.

I grew up among scientists in communist atheism. I’m a member of local sceptics group and some of my best friends are scientists (including a couple of neuroscientists) and CSICOP members. In my undergraduate years, there was nothing more exciting for me other than being part of the science vs. religion debate, or better, science vs. pseudoscience debate. I loved and still love some of the arguments made by David Hume, Bertrand Russell and a lot of contemporary atheist thinkers such as Dennett and Paul Kurts. I felt it was my duty as someone has committed to lifelong learning and pursuit of truth to be defending modern science whenever and wherever I could. I took every class and tutorial related to philosophy of science and history of science I could get my hands on. At some point in my graduate years though, I started to see the deep problem with the thinking that our entire world can only be explained and explained away by science. It first came as a theoretical problem for me but soon I felt intellectually suffocating to be pursuing along this line of thinking.

Nowadays, I don’t feel the huge need to defend science any more because, for one thing, science is doing fine just by itself. However, I do feel the need to point out that the worst ‘enemy’ of science is actually not religion or other non-science lovers, but those simple-minded and dogmatic thinkers who dismiss anything outside the realm of what they understood to be science. They are the ones who give science and scientists a bad name. I guess the same can be said about lawyers, philosophers and politicians. It's not what field one chooses to be in but how one would like to pursue in it.

Very well said, particularly Yixi's response.

FWIW, I grew up more or less agnostic (or rather more likely passively atheistic), probably somewhere along the lines of where Karen is now w/ the UU. I was also made vaguely aware of certain basic religious beliefs both in Christianity and in certain Eastern popular religions and superstitions (since I'm Chinese originally from Hong Kong). My position had more or less been the same as Yixi and various others in this blog thread throughout most of my educational life (though I wasn't exactly actively seeking to "defend science"), and I did not come to the kind of realization (and basically, a paradigm shift) that Yixi arrived at until my final year in college.

Now, yes, I'm an Evangelical Christian. However, I should note that becoming a Christian did not mean I stopped thinking, stopped considering what the "truth" really is, etc. etc. And indeed, I've changed sides and thoughts on various popular, hotly debated topics like Evolution vs Creationism, Free Will vs Election/Predestination, etc. etc. :-)

And at the end of the day (after more than a decade of being a Christian), I can only arrive at this about such things. Some of this apparently paradoxical stuff are simply beyond my capability to fully (or maybe even partially) know and understand. But then again, that's perfectly fine since that's really what I *should* believe as a fundamental aspect of the faith.

Now, I'm not suggesting that faith necessarily dictates that we should abandon all logic and reasoning, but quite to the contrary, IMHO. I don't *think* there's anything illogical about admitting that there are certain unknowable truths and that certain things will *seem* paradoxical or even contradictorial due to our lack of full understanding.

I'm a (admittedly mediocre-at-best) Computer Scientist, BTW, and there's this little theorem regarding NP Completeness, which is essentially the Comp Sci take on Goedel's theorem about certain mathematical truths that cannot be proven. Now, no, I'm not saying this exactly shows or proves that Christian truths don't need to be proven in order to still be true (as many aficionados like to point out :-) ). But reflecting upon that mathematical truth *should* lead a sincere seeker of the truth to consider more carefully about his/her stance on the validity of religious "truths".

And even as science itself has needed to evolve and grow (both to correct pass errors and to search out new truths), the scientically inclined skeptic *should* IMHO also offer the same courtesy to religion as well when also considering the long history of errors (and atrocities) in the religious search for truth. :-)

And finally, for anyone sincerely interested, might I suggest checking out this new book I recently came across by one fairly well respected, apologetics preacher of whom I'm familiar? The book is Dr. Tim Keller's "The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism". I have not actually read it yet myself, but do plan to read it in the near future. Seems like it could make very worthwhile reading for those who are sincerely interested in the subject at hand. Hope y'all find it to be so.

And now, may the peace of my God, who apparently has remained "unknown" to many of you (much as to the Athenians whom the Apostle Paul met in Acts 17), yet be w/ y'all some day...

In Him...

_Man_

"And even as science itself has needed to evolve and grow (both to correct pass errors and to search out new truths), the scientically inclined skeptic *should* IMHO also offer the same courtesy to religion as well when also considering the long history of errors (and atrocities) in the religious search for truth."

It would seem that the very reason why such debate gets so heated is the fact that religion is rather reluctant to corrective change whilst many critics are demanding precisely such change.

Let's look at a very straightforward example of a statement in religious scripture where you would be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't conclude that it is outright wrong, even among religious persons: Exodus 21:7-11 states that a father can sell his daughter into slavery to pay a debt. Can we agree with that? Can we justify that? Can we imagine a situation where such a statement could ever be justified? I personally don't think so, and I believe most religious persons today would agree with me on that. There are many other such examples where ethics promoted in old religious scriptures fall desperately short of modern ethical standards or violate those standards but they are still being taught anyway.

So, why is this still part of religious scripture? Why is there no editing process to remove it or at least clarify that it is wrong and only kept for historic reasons? Why is there not even any discussion about such a removal or editing? Why is asking for the removal of such obvious errors treated as blasphemy? (Christian/Islamic/Jewish) religious scripture itself says that "scribes made mistakes". Why then should it be so painful to allow some statements to be found erroneous and have them revoked?

In my view it is this dogmatic attitude that causes such a heated argument in the first place.

In science the debate can get very intense, too, but at least you can raise problems with a generally accepted theory, have them discussed and get the theory either modified or replaced when solutions to those problems are found. Einstein's theory superseded Newton's (in an additive sense), Darwin's theory superseded that of Lamarck. Even Darwin's theory has been superseded (in a consolidating sense) by the modern evolutionary theory developed in the 1940s. Further research will lead to further changes in the theoretic framework in the future.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am *not* arguing about whether or not there is a god or gods. I am talking about the process how obvious errors are being dealt with in the context of religious teachings, nothing else.

Benjamin,

The Bible (Old & New Testaments) are historical records (especially the Old) of the way things were during various periods for Israel and surrounding nations and cultures. To delete historical records because they do not meet with modern, accepted cultural practices would be like changing all of the historical records when anything questionable, nasty, cruel or despicable and deplorable happened.

That, in fact, is one of the amazing aspects of the Bible — nothing is hidden.

I cannot believe that anyone would want to change historical documents unless the records themselves were found to be unquestionably false and that was therefore unquestionably proven.

As far as I know such situations as you mention in Exodus 21:7-11 are certainly not taught as something we should do in this day and age. If you read carefully, the daughter sold as a "maidservant" was well protected and provided for under various circumstances that could arise — whether staying as a servant, becoming the wife of the master, or even the wife of the master's son (to then be treated as a daughter by the master of the house), and she could return to her family, but never be sold to strange or other cultures. She was never to be deserted, but always cared for.

In Europe and many parts of the world in the 1800's some individuals were indentured to various trades and work periods — it was a contract. Was it ever abused? Probably. Abuses go on in the world today — whether the free work force, families, schools and all levels of society. We do not condone it, as we do not condone crime.

There are excellent, scholarly studies on the scriptures available in bookstores around the world — well worth picking up a few, or simply going to the library.

Karen—
Thanks for the blog and I truly appreciate reading everyones thoughts. Some areas we agree on and some we don't.

I would love to possess the knowledge all of you have in your various fields, along with mine, but I can't convince nature to give me 48 hour days and 28 day weeks — I'll work on that — ha, actually wouldn't that be the job for the scientists:-)

This is not a ball game where one has to win — just play the game the best we can with the knowledge we have and then acquire even more knowledge.

What an amazing time in history that we are fortunate to be a part of — WOW!!!

All the best —
Drew

That's not what I was talking about, I am talking about guidance rules in the old testament which are still being taught as guidance rules today even though they violate modern ethics. Such guidance is presented as god's word and god's guidance given to the faithful to live by.

Just this week we could see the news showing a case in Texas where a christian sect lives by this guidance and they abuse religious freedom to abuse women and children. Where is the rest of the christian world to say that this particular guidance is no longer valid, that it was an error of history? Which Bible is printed with an editorial note that says "This is clearly wrong, it cannot ever be taken as guidance, it is mentioned here only as historic reference to illustrate how bad people can behave against their fellow human beings when they think they are guided by god when they are in fact not" or something along those lines. I would very much like to see such a Bible if it does exists.

For as long as this doesn't happen, I have to reject the argument that this is kept only as a historic reference not as guidance and consider that argument to be a convenient excuse.

As for "nothing is hidden", are you talking about the texts in their Hebrew and Aramaic versions or later versions translated into Greek, Latin, English etc etc?

Certainly the English versions never distinguish between the plural gods (Elohim) and the singular god (Yahweh) mentioned, they conveniently map that all to a singular god. If that doesn't qualify as hidden, then I don't know what does.

This doesn't even count all the documents which were deliberately excluded and destroyed at and after the congress of Mycene. This was the last time in history when Christian clerics were allowed to discuss what should go into the scripture and what should remain outside, whether Jesus was to be considered a prophet or a god and many other such questions. The Christian Bible is a product of what the congress of Mycene and the powerful of the day wanted the Christian religion to be. Ever since, anything that would challenge the interpretation and manipulation of the congress would be supressed and this practise continues to this day.

And my point was precisely that the heat of the debate stems from that dogmatic stance and not as suggested from an unwillingness to grant them some slack towards gradual change.

THe religion / science fisticuffs is so 19th century. Nothing in religion is as religious as, say, the multiverse hypothesis of quanta. And, statistics (science) shows that we're more likely a reality simulated from the future than the authentic ancestor reality. And in a simulation anything is possible...
Wow, thanks for these responses! I became a UU about 12 years ago, after having been raised as a mainline Protestant (non-Evangelical, in the US sense, although "Evangelische" in German translation).

It's interesting to read stories of how adults change faith traditions and how where they end up is different from where they started. Even though some of us have gone one way and some the other, in every case there seems to have been a reaction against perceived dogmatism and narrowness in the tradition one grew up in. I know I felt that very strongly; my experience was a lot like what Benjamin writes: how could we revere the Bible the way we do when it has so many confusing and scary things in it, so much cruelty and suffering? As a budding feminist when I was a teenager, I was especially sensitive to the treatment of women in the Bible and, even more so, in modern religions: the prohibition on women priests in Roman Catholicism, the menstruation taboos in Orthodox Judaism, the various rantings of Paul about wives having to submit to their husbands and women having to cover their heads. Lot offering up his virgin teenage daughters for rape in order to protect two visiting strangers--in the name of "hospitality."

At one point I got into a silly argument with my Confirmation class teacher about whether Peter had really done such a bad thing by claiming not to know Jesus three times. It seemed to me frankly quite sensible that Peter would hide his connection in that persecutory climate, bide his time, and live to fight another day. I made up a scenario in which Peter and the rest of the disciples could have hidden in the hills, rode into town on their donkeys, rescued Jesus, and then and ridden out of Jerusalem. I wanted that story to be true--and was disappointed and confused by what was actually written, which just made no sense, not intellectually, not emotionally. "He is risen"--what, like bread dough? And why do they keep using that archaic, German-like verb usage, "is risen"? In modern German the verb "to be" is still used for the past-participle of non-transitive verbs, but in modern English, it's not. Except there. What's up with that?

No one in my home church, or several that I attended later, addressed any of these concerns. They dismissed them and implied that *I* was the narrow-minded, dogmatic, and foolish one for bringing them up.

I agree very much with Drew's point about the Bible being an imperfect historical record and that it should be treated as such, "warts" and all, but at least in the Sunday schools I'm familiar with, it's not generally taught that way to children. It's taught as "the truth," and yes, it's taught as a guide to how to live. We wrestle with this issue on the RE committee in my church a great deal. How do we teach these stories to our children so that they learn ethical lessons from them and aren't scared and alienated by them instead, the way we were when we were kids?

I've since been fortunate to broaden my horizons and meet Christians who aren't like this. And so I agree with Yixi that the main problem is indeed dogmatic thinking. And for sure, no one group has a monopoly on that.

Man's point about paradoxes is interesting. I definitely don't understand the Goedel reference, but I will ask my computer scientist (atheist) husband if he can explain it to me. I have had a similar experience that it is valuable to learn to hold paradoxes in your mind. Especially in relationships with other people, accepting their paradoxical nature, accepting that their worst faults can also be their greatest strengths, seems the essence of compassion. But to me, the value is in *trying* to resolve these paradoxes as kind of a learning experience. You may never resolve them, and you have to accept that, but you need to at least try.

p.s. Benjamin, Thomas Jefferson made an edition of the Bible where he edited out the parts he thought were untrue: The Jefferson Bible

Also, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a group of other 19th century feminists revised the Bible to make it more friendly to women: From Karen Allendoerfer
Posted on April 11, 2008 at 11:50 AM