Science v. Religion

There's a very interesting discussion going on in the science blogosphere about, on the one hand, a concept called "framing", and the centuries-old science versus religion debate. It begins with posts by Matt Nisbet, Sheril Kirshenbaum, and Chris Mooney, and goes on from there. Mr. Mooney launched into a discussion of framing, which is definitely a worthwhile read. For my part, I'm going to try to integrate the two issues at hand, although the "science v. religion" concept is the angle to which I've given much more thought.

Because I don't encounter it much in my daily life, I have to admit that I'm a bit shocked to see direct evidence that many people consider "science v. religion" to be an all-out war. I'm not at all surprised that there is a plethora of opinions and views, but the level of sheer vitriol gave me pause. Aside from encouraging people to consider their own emotions and logic with the same overdose of scrutiny they apply to others' positions, I don't suppose there's much to be done about that. I'll skip the usual admonishments about how venting, personal attacks, flame wars, and even old-fashioned hard-headedness add nothing to reasonable dialogue, and the platitudes about how a lack of reasonable dialogue makes me sad. To the first, we all know that for truth. To the second, who cares?

The more pertinent question is, given that some portion of the population will always be prone to the wanton expression of whatever happens to be in their heads, and given that most of us would like to maintain respectful dialogue regardless, how do those of us in the latter group respond to the former group? I can't add to what has already been written about picking your battles, being the "better man" and "taking the high road", and knowing when enough is enough; those lessons have been elucidated for generations and only remain to be learned by each individual. What I do want to consider is that the way in which one advances his argument makes a terrific difference in the way it is understood and received.

PZ Myers, in an interview he gave to the University Register at UMM, uses language and references that seem more designed to amuse than anything else. I have to admit, I totally missed the Batman references, as those of you who know me will absolutely understand. On the other hand, his use of internet/gaming jargon ("EPIC fail. Evolution FTW!") made me giggle. I speak internet; I don't speak comic books. In that light, the Batman references made me confused, and I initially read that as Mr. Myers demonstrating himself to be your usual too-smart-for-his-own-good-asshole(-scientist). The internet jargon was probably just as alienating to those who aren't familiar with it. I'm the last person on earth to advocate communicating without a sense of humor (Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is one of my all-time favorites), and Mr. Myers's interview is a rather tame example of science communication gone awry (in fact, his language was entirely appropriate for the university newspaper context; removing it from that context and posting it on his blog did the original a disservice), but I think the point that contexts, likely v. intended reception of one's message, and allusions should be considered before publishing stands. At its heart, no matter what shades or nuances anyone attempts to add, I think this is what is meant by "framing" a message. It's a simple concept: Present what you have to say as honestly as you can in the best possible (and most accessible) light, and you'll save yourself from having to backtrack, as Mr. Mooney had to do.

On the other hand, I've very nearly had it with this "science v. religion" mess. I would love to get up on a soapbox and get everybody to go back to the basics of what science and religion essentially are, but I doubt I'd get a consensus even on that. My blog isn't much of a soapbox, but my take is that science is a tool that we use to explore and understand the physical world (and, increasingly, the metaphysical world), while religion is about our relationships to each other and to "the divine", however we choose to define that. These worldviews aren't mutually exclusive, and often serve to inform each other. Of keen interest right now, for example, is the ethical regulation of genetic testing and genetically modified organisms. Our technical ability to test for genetic defects and disease susceptibility and to modify the DNA of organisms is quite separate from opinions and decisions about whether or not we should actually do those things. The interface between science and religion can be even more complex than the issues I just mentioned, but I really don't think that anybody, no matter what his view, is well-served by the loaded, confusing, and often misleading positions put out by loyal creationists, devout scientific atheists, or anybody in between.

A little bit of critical thinking and respect would go a long way to improve the caliber of this particular discussion. And, this is where the concept of framing comes into play again. Creationists and scientists alike have treated the subject as a dichotomy that can have only one right side, and all they've succeeded at is rabble-rousing on their own side, inciting anger and hatred on the opposing side, and alienating those of us in the middle who didn't sign up for a culture war and, perhaps, don't even recognize grounds for one.