In defense of believers

In the February 273 Triv-February 273, 2019, an article “On scientists, believers and psychics” was published [ 1 ] signed by Vim Nikolaev, which caused a lively discussion. This article is directed against believers: in the understanding of Nikolaev, they are trying to shield in their lives a corner for religion, for this, neglecting the standards of rationality inherent in scientific thinking. As the author of the article proves, even if religious faith does not affect the professional activity of the scientist, she is still reprehensible: “... believers <...> in some ways“ substitute ”science with their worldview and their statements.” Honestly, this conclusion sounds like a veiled “out of the profession”. Therefore, as a representative of these very believers, I would like to say a few words in their excuse.

Immediately wean out of the brackets of Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Blaz Pascal and other classics of scientific thought, with links to which they often prove that religion and science can get along well in the head of the same person. These titans lived in those shaggy years when philosophy, religion and natural science have not yet been clearly separated from each other; And now the situation is fundamentally different. However, there were enough believers among famous scientists in the 20th century, when the professionalization of science has already gone far. From the area I know I can mention Ronald Fisher and Theodosius of Dobrzhansky - architects of modern evolutionary synthesis, the first of which (“The Greatest Biologist of the XX Century”, according to Richard Dokinza), was practicing the Anglican, and the second - Orthodox. But these are, again, individual examples that prove little. It is much more interesting to see how religion refers to the scientific community as a whole. A study on this topic several years ago was conducted by sociologists from the University of Rice in seven countries: France, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, Great Britain and the USA, as well as in Hong Kong (Fig. 1) [ 2 ].

Rice. 1. The proportion of scientists who visit religious services at least once a week (left) and consider themselves to one degree or another religious (right) compared to the rest of the population [ 2 ]

It turned out that the level of religiosity of scientists varies depending on how religious the rest of the population is. In France, one of the most secular countries in Europe, only 16% of scientists declare their religiosity, and pray every day and go to church at least once a week only 3%. In Italy, where the positions of the Catholic Church are much stronger, more than half of scientists consider themselves religious, and 17% are attended by worship. Scientists from the USA and Great Britain are located somewhere in the middle between these two poles. As for scientists from developing countries, such as India and Türkiye, even in their religiosity they overtake even colleagues of Italians. However, whatever the general situation with religion, in the number of believers (both nominal and practitioners), the scientific community in almost all cases is about one and a half to three times behind the population as a whole. There are only two exceptions - Hong Kong and Taiwan: scientists there are even a little more religious than their fellow citizens. Perhaps this is due to the fact that a good education that opens up opportunities for a scientific career is often obtained in these regions in Protestant and Catholic colleges. In any case, as the study proves, believers in the modern world - this is not a deviation from the norm, but social reality. In some countries, they are even in the majority. Is it too bold to blame all these people of “substituting” science?

VIM Nikolaev addresses two reproaches to believers. The first of them is associated with attempts to attribute religious beliefs to the special sphere of being, which is not accountable to science and at the same time cannot contradict it. Paleontologist Stephen Gold at one time called this approach the idea of non -overturning magisteres. Nikolaev remarks: “.. there are no evidence that something is not available to science or that there is some kind of“ other plane ”; We do not see any boundaries of scientific knowledge. ” A childishly uncomplicated belief in the omnipotence of science, which brings through these words, is often found among domestic symbolic scientists, who at best heard about Kant during the surrender of a candidate minimum. But these are already issues to the level of teaching philosophy in Russian universities. If he were a little higher, then it would not have to be explained that science is operating in the sphere of phenomena, and things in itself, which are behind them, will never become the property of human knowledge. Scientists can find out how the essence called “electron” manifests itself in interaction with other particles, but what is the electron in itself, regardless of its external manifestations, is not able to say science.

Sharz on the Scottish naturalist and theologian Henry Dramond, published in *The Student* , February 22, 1893

As Konrad Lorenz noted, modern biology indicates approximately in the same direction as cantianism. Unlike philosophers-encyclopedists of the past who extolled the mind to heaven, we know that science is a by-product of the evolution of the brain of mammals, and this alone throws a shadow on faith in the boundless possibilities of human knowledge. Our brain and sensory organs act in a narrow range set by their animal origin. The advantage in the struggle for existence is the most healthy and prolific individuals, regardless of their ability to comprehend the highest reality or penetrate the secrets of the origin of the Universe. If, by a happy chance, one of the biological species has learned to solve the equations of quantum mechanics and calculate the mass of black holes, it does not at all follow that its cognition is accessible to the fullness of the existing. Herbert Spencer, who, in the 19th century, made no less to spread evolutionary ideas than Darwin, wrote about the “unknowable” (The Unknowable), into which all attempts to penetrate the final essence of things. Humanity in search of empirical truth will be forced to behave like that drunk from a joke that searches for the keys to the lantern because it is lighter there. This tactic also bears fruits. But it would be foolish to deny that outside the illuminated area, an extensive area of the unknowable is hidden, no matter how frightening and mysterious it may seem.

The content of this area of the unknowable serves as the subject of faith, not evidence -based knowledge. It is here that the sphere of religion begins. Of course, theologians still talk about the arguments in favor of the existence of the Creator, but even if you recognize such arguments rightful (there are different opinions on this subject), then the concept of a “rational root cause” itself is too abstract to find a response in the heart of a person. So the real basis of the Christian religion, like any other, is a number of unprocessed provisions: the existence of Paradise, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead. They can only be taken on faith, and this theologian will confirm this to you, starting from the Apostle Paul.

And here we approach the second reproach, which my opponent throws to believers: "... a real scientist does not accept anything to faith, and is in doubt, including his own opinion." Indeed, can this be called worthy behavior when the scientist, crossing the threshold of the church, suddenly completely turns off the skill of critical thinking?

Honestly, it is quite difficult for me to imagine a similar situation. Almost every modern believer - it doesn’t matter whether he is a scientist or not - passes through the “males of doubts”, which Dostoevsky wrote about at one time. These doubts can concern the internal coherence of Christian dogma: how to reconcile, for example, an idea of the omniscience of God with human freedom? Doubts are also born in the clash of faith with the observed facts: why does God allow the existence of evil? One way or another, you have to give answers to these questions, so religious faith is not blind and non -reflexive. Of course, even if all doubts are resolved (which never happens: faith is an incessant intellectual search), the lack of obvious contradictions and serious counter -revolutions against a religious worldview does not give any guarantee that it is true. It can never be ruled out that the region of the unknowable is completely different from what adherents of a particular religion believe. But every person has such beliefs, the truth of which is ultimately unprovable: only believers are not anything but double standards.

For example, most people believe in the existence of the external world and the reality of the past, but neither one nor the other lends itself to verification. Here, as in the field of religion, a variety of options are possible. Suddenly, the outside world is just an illusion that a certain higher consciousness inspires us, as George Berkeley proved, or a computer simulation created by advanced civilization (Nick Boster)? Or try to prove that the Universe with dinosaurs bones and relict radiation did not arise last Thursday, as Bertrand Russell ironized. With moral judgments, even worse. For example, the statements “must help children with hereditary diseases” or “we must save the disappearing views from extinction” in the light of the theory of evolution, they look highly problematic. Why should we - contrary to the natural selection - to ensure the survival of the carriers of defective genes, instead of contributing to their speedy disappearance from the population? Extension is a natural component of the evolutionary process. Why should I care about the prosperity of the Amur tigers and other evolutionary losers, who, unlike rats and cockroaches, could not successfully adapt to the neighborhood with a person?

Nevertheless, I did not hear that someone accused scientists involved in charity or protecting rare species of violating the principles of scientific evidence. Then what are biologists, physicists or chemists who live in accordance with religious ideas, whose truth is as impossible as the truth of the imperatives of secular morality? It is time to admit that in the modern world, where science has long turned into a mass profession, one cannot customize everyone who is busy with one pattern. Scientists are a miniature cast of the whole society, and therefore believers are also found among them, just like representatives of sexual or ethnic minorities. In my opinion, this is a great occasion to practice tolerance. In the end, a “real scientist” can be found out by the availability of publications in the reviewed magazines, and not by the lack of religious beliefs.

Alexander Khramov,
cand. Biol. sciences, Art. scientific. sore. Paleontological Institute. A.A. Borisyaka RAS

TRV-SCIENCE.ru/OB-UCHENYX-VERUYUSHIX-I-EKSTRASESAX/
ECKLUND EH et al. Religion Among Scientists in International Context: A New Study of Scientists in Eight Regions // Socius. 2016. Vol. 2. P. 1–9. Journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023116664353