systems of knowledge that are in opposition. This approach is common and evident in a spate of contemporary books that take the position that science and religion represent competing ways of understanding the world and that science (or religion) is the one and only valid way of understanding human behavior and the world around us (3-8). For instance, in 7he God Delusion, Richard Dawkins places specific Judeo- Christian theological doctrines under the scrutiny of science only to find that none passes scientific muster.
The vast majority of people from all educational backgrounds continue to harbor strong religious beliefs that affect their daily decisions and behavior, with both good and ill effects. These religious belief systems most commonly bump into scientific claims around invisible forces. When science opens up opportunities to improve the human condition by providing a more complete understanding of the causes of events, their measurable effects, and possible interventions— ranging from valid science education to medical advancements based on stem cell research — these opportunities are often threatened by the application of specific religious beliefs to these endeavors. Scientific research to understand religion and religious belief systems may be a more productive response than broad denouncements by scientists of any who hold such beliefs.
Conversely, when religion opens up opportunities for improving the human condition by questioning the emphasis on short-term self-interests at the expense of the collective, providing a more complete understanding of the human need to attribute meaning to events and their effects, and identifying possible interventions— ranging from the
Page |13
provision of tangible support to individuals in need, to the promotion of healthy lifestyles and ethical behavior— scientific research to understand these influences may again be a more productive response than broad denouncements by scientists that such beliefs are irrational. Indeed, the question of whether God exists is of much less scientific interest, and of much more questionable scientific merit (how would one scientifically falsify such a claim?), than the question of the causes, consequences, and underlying mechanisms for the observable human behaviors affected by invisible forces--- whether they be physical (gravity), social (groups), or perceived spiritual
(gods).
Contemporary science explains many of these phenomena but also points to the human capacities and emergent processes that derive from collective social structures and actions and, underlying the emergence of these structures, the human need for meaning- making and connecting to something beyond oneself. The dominant metaphor for the scientific study of the human mind during the latter half of the 20" century has been the computer — a solitary device with massive information processing capacities. Computers today are massively interconnected devices with capacities that extend far beyond the resident hardware and software of a solitary computer. The extended capacities made possible by the internet can be said to be emergent because they represent a whole that is greater than the simple sum of the actions that are possible by the sum of the individual (disconnected) computers that constitute the internet. The telereceptors (e.g., eyes, ears) of the human brain have provided wireless broadband
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021259