Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists versus God and Religion
Warning: mysql_fetch_assoc(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/ofceleb/public_html/wp-content/plugins/max-banner-ads-pro/max-banner-ads-lib/include/max-banner-ads.cls.php on line 433
Biologists Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Edward O. Wilson, and physicists Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Steven Weinberg have become public intellectuals, articulating a much larger vision for science and what role it should play in the modern worldview. The scientific prestige and literary eloquence of each of these great thinkers combine to transform them into what can only be called oracles of science. Curiously, the leading "oracles of science" are predominantly secular in ways that don't reflect the distribution of religious beliefs within the scientific community. Many of them are even hostile to religion, creating a false impression that science as a whole is incompatible with religion. Karl Giberson and Mariano Artigas offer an informed analysis of the views of these six scientists, carefully distinguishing science from philosophy and religion in the writings of the oracles.
Customer Review: Distinguishing Science from Ideology
This book analyzes, with a respectful but critical eye, the popular writings of six of the most influential scientists in shaping our contemporary perception of science: biologists, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Edward O. Wilson, and physicists Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Steven Weinberg. Because of their credentials, their achievements, and their literary eloquence, these scientists have become public intellectuals, oracles of science, expressing authoritatively their opinions in all sorts of issues that lie beyond the boundaries of science. Their views are predominantly secular, and most of the time hostile to religion; therefore, creating the false impression that science is by nature incompatible with religion.
Karl Giberson and Mariano Artigas, both physicists and believers, provide an in-depth, sympathetic and loving examination of each of the six scientist's credentials, and scientific achievements while, at the same time, distinguishing these from their views on religion. The book shows the importance of "distinguer pour comprendre e unir" (to distinguish in order to understand and to unite) of philosopher Jacques Maritain. The authors clearly distinguish between science and personal views of the scientists or between science and pseudoscience: in other words, propaganda or a weapon for the promotion of an ideological agenda masquerading as science.
Furthermore, the book eloquently demonstrates that science is perfectly compatible with religion, both from a theoretical and from a practical standpoint. It also shows that these oracles in no way represent the views of the majority of the scientific community. In fact, important leaders of this community have found compatibility between their faith and their scientific pursuits, such as Francis Collins, leader of the genome project, Allan Sandage, one of the greatest astronomers of the twentieth century, physics Nobel laureate William Phillips, and many more.
My favorite quotes are: 1)"There is a world of difference between the `methodological naturalism' used in the sciences (seeking natural explanations) and an `ontological naturalism' that denies the reality of anything outside the reach of science. While methodological naturalism has no problems, except for creationists and the advocates of Intelligent Design, scientific naturalism is self-defeating. The claim that nothing exists aside from what can be studied by the scientific method is a philosophical position. If you want to determine what science is and how far its reach extends, you must place yourself outside science, taking a philosophical perspective. But if there is no territory outside science, how are we going to stand there?" p. 234
2)"We have been describing the Oracles of Science as ambassadors, messengers from the scientific community to the public at large. They play an important role in our scientific culture. We are in sympathy with their scientific findings and their cultural role. We applaud their capacity to communicate challenging ideas and their ability to provoke enthusiasm for the scientific entreprise. We would desire, however, that they would treat the humanistic issues that lie beyond the boundaries of science with the same careful rigor they employ when dealing with scientific problems. This would be a great service to society, effectively undermining the arguments of those who, like the proponents of Intelligent Design, see science as dangerously allied with materialism". p.234.
Customer Review: Unwarranted trespassing?
`Oracles of Science' is a good book. No doubt Giberson and Artigas are knowledgeable scientists and they argue their case with care and subtlety. There are however a few reservations to be made.
Firstly, I find the major idea of the book unconvincing. In criticizing the popular books by Dawkins, Gould, Hawking, Sagan, Weinberg and Wilson, they assert that scientists should not be allowed to `trespass' into other areas than their science proper. There is a lot of talk about unwarranted conclusions, improper speculations and the well-known `naturalistic fallacy'. But these are popular science books and why on earth should the authors be prohibited to philosophize and speculate about god knows what (pun intended)? That, in my opinion, is precisely what makes these books so interesting - and successful. The authors are not abusing science, they are just putting forward their personal opinions. If that were not the case the books would make for boring reading indeed.
Which leads to the second reservation. It seems to me that whenever there is critique of religion and faith, believers easily get their feelings hurt. Giberson and Artigas talk of hostility to God, vicious attacks on religion and so forth as if it were a deadly sin. They portray some of the authors as being either simpletons or `evolution evangelists' and `secular priests'. `Weinberg is simply pontificating from his platform of prestige, without seriously engaging these difficult issues' p. 184. Do I sense a little professional jealousy here?
Thirdly, I'd like to say something about the quotation on p. 14. where Richard Dawkins is charging that people who don't believe in evolution are `stupid, wicked or insane'. They had to dig deep to find that, but it's all there on the Internet. The quotation comes from a book review in the New York Times from 1989 (!). In a discussion of whether creationism should be given equal time in biology classes as evolution, Dawkins says: `...if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).' The next sentence is: `If that gives you offence, I'm sorry.'
I always thought that when you quote something, you must be absolutely certain that the quotation is correct. But maybe, like Dawkins, I'm also becoming a museum piece (p. 52).
Lastly, on the back cover journalist Larry Witham claims that this book also cautions believers against a similar abuse (i.e. trespassing) of science. Well, I'm sorry but I must have missed out on that - maybe the meticulous reader can find some references to that effect.
These qualms aside, `Oracles of Science' is a serious and thought-provoking book, well worth reading.
