This past Sunday I had the pleasure of hearing Massimo Pigliucci give a presentation titled, “What’s Science got to do With It? When Scientists talk Nonsense about Science and Religion”. Pigliucci is a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, is an outspoken critic of creationism, an advocate of science education, and has a doctorate in genetics, a Ph.D. in botany, and a Ph.D. in philosophy. He writes for the Skeptical Inquirer, Philosophy Now, and also maintains the blog rationallyspeaking.org.

Pigliucci discussed scientists who have had something to say about religion.

The first is Frank Tipler. Pigliucci concentrates on Tipler’s book, The Physics of Christianity, poking fun (and holes) at the arguments Tipler presents for how Christianity is validated by science.

1. Tipler asserts that Christianity foretold quantum mechanics within the opening lines of the Nicene Creed.
   
   I believe in one God,
   the Father Almighty,
   maker of heaven and earth,
   and of all things visible and invisible;
   
   Pigliucci doesn’t make much of an argument against this, but points it out to introduce how absurd Tipler’s other arguments are going to be.
   
2. Tipler claims that evil came from the genesis of metazoans (multi-cellular organisms) and when they began eating other organisms. Pigliucci points out that unicellular organisms eat each other all the time, and even herbivores don’t consume a cruelty-free diet, considering plants are multi-cellular.
   
3. Tipler poses a familiar Christian belief, that of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. He then claims that the Trinity is manifest in the universe because it also consists of three singularities: The Big Bang, The Big Crunch, and a third that Tipler asserts must be there. Didn’t anyone ever teach him not to alter, or make up, results to fit his hypothesis?
   
4. Tipler now argues in favor of the “virgin birth” by suggesting that Mary underwent parthenogenesis – a type of asexual reproduction. Pigliucci mentions the fact that parthenogenesis has never been observed in mammals and, more importantly, always produces a female.
   
5. Tipler predicts the Second Coming will occur in less than 50 years, and it will occur because of two things – (1) computers surpassing human intelligence and (2) the emergence of dematerialization weapons. Pigliucci argues that Tipler’s use of “human intelligence” is imprecise, and then playfully supposes the super-human computers might create the dematerialization weapons to destroy us. But even if these things were to occur, Jesus’ return because of them is a non sequitur.
   
   

Pigliucci tackles Richard Dawkins next, explaining how he thinks Dawkins gets some things right, yet others terribly wrong.

Speaking specifically about The God Delusion, Pigliucci agrees with Dawkins on the free criticism of religion. However, he faults Dawkins for several reasons.

1. Pigliucci does not agree that science can empirically prove or disprove the existence of a deity because the supernatural is (supposedly) beyond the empirical realm, and science is only concerned with the natural world.
   
2. Pigliucci mentions that Dawkins’ infinite regression and Ockham’s Razor arguments against god are philosophical rather than scientific, lending credibility to Gould’s NOMA theory.
   
3. He accuses Dawkins of the “rationalistic fallacy”, which you can read more about here.

Pigliucci also discussed Dawkins’ statement about the current pope being “stupid” (referring to the pope’s erroneous comments about condoms). Pigliucci argues that the pope is not “stupid”, but his comments were. He urges skeptics to avoid attacks like this because they solve nothing. It reminds me of the Christian mantra “hate the sin not the sinner.” Perhaps we should hate the ideology not the ideologist.

Finally, Pigliucci discusses Richard Feynman and “the real problem between science and religion.” I don’t recall which quote he used, but this one from The Meaning of it All is appropriate.

"The exception tests the rule." Or, put another way, "The exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.

The problem, then, between science and religion is the different attitudes regarding them. While science says, “question question question”, religion says, “believe without question.” Science requires proof, while religion is proof without requirement; and as long as this attitude about religion is sustained, it will forever butt heads with science.

One question from the Q&A also interested me. Someone wondered how Europe and the U.S. could be so culturally similar yet so religiously different. Pigliucci theorized that it might be because Europe was the birthplace and center of the Enlightenment, and that the United States has never hosted an Inquisition.

Do you think Pigliucci’s answers are valid? Do you have another explanation? Or do you even agree that the U.S. and Europe are very different concerning religion?