Reframing the argument: Is it "religion vs science"?

Religion vs science. Science vs religion.

For a long time, that classic match-up has bothered me. I don't think it makes for an accurate depiction of what the opposing sides are here, and a poorly-defined argument stands little chance of reaching any conclusion.

Others have said it already, and have done so better than I will, but I'll take a shot at it anyway: what science is opposed to is not religion per se, but faith. Belief not founded upon rational evidence. And while the words "religion" and "faith" are used interchangably, they're not the same. For purposes of the "science vs religion" debate, the distinction is important.

What is "religion"?

Good question. Not only are there a myriad of recognized religions to choose from, there's first the under-discussed issue of what the heck religion is.

And that's perhaps the flaw in pitting reason against "religion": if "know your enemy" is a key to success in battle, your chances of winning slip when you can't define the foe.

We usually know what we're talking about when we confront "religion": bundled sets of unreasoned beliefs and dogma. But the danger therein is that it's not the only possible definition.

What about the recognition and celebration of transcendental "experiences", or just the feelings of awe inspired by the universe – can that, and that alone, minus accompanying harmful dogma, be termed a religion? That definition wouldn't satisfy me, but might others not hold to it?

How about harmless cultural traditions that are associated with religion, yet don't necesarily call for "belief"? I'm writing this from Tokyo, where many, many people maintain customs tied to Buddhism and Shinto – from life's big ceremonies like weddings and funerals, to little daily rituals of thanks or remembrance – which, fortunately, don't (for most practitioners) impinge upon rational thinking and acceptance of science. The same goes for benign customs from Judeo-Christian traditions, from wedding vows to the nicely jumbled mix of Christian themes and pure paganism that is Christmas. Accepting these traditions for their cultural value, while neatly excising associated dogma, may constitute a fine definition of religion for many.

Similarly, some may cherry-pick the worthy activities espoused by a religion – volunteer work, charity, or even just socializing with fellow members – and consider these items alone as the content of their "religion". If pressed, they may agree to being unsure, or even unconcerned, about the commandments and the proscriptions and the dogma. When "religion" is little more than a social club or other focus for community activities, is it really an enemy?

I think most foes of religion will have no problem recognizing the above forms of "religion"; they (usually) make clear that what they protest is dogmatic, anti-reason, meddlesome religion, not feelings of awe or benign traditions or friendly socializing. (After all, Richard Dawkins cheerfully owns up to singing Christmas carols, and I think that's great!) Likewise, followers of religion should understand what the protesters are and aren't criticizing.

Yet we shouldn't assume that everyone understands such rules of the debate. We can anger reasonably rational folk who practice traditions that have religious trappings but are harmless. Yes, those people would be at fault for taking offense too quickly, without taking care to understand our real targets. But why risk offending potential allies? And a more likely danger: given any possibility of misunderstanding what we mean when we decry religion, we know that wilier foes of reason will purposely twist our legitimate anti-religion arguments into screeds against soup kitchens and the Golden Rule. Why hand them the fodder?

The real foe: faith

The problem with attacking "religion" is clear: the word is too broad, encompassing – for some people – harmless practices outside of the legitimate target that we mean by "religion".

Yet at the same time, "religion" as a target is too narrow, too. Think of all the harmful, stupid practices that go against science and reason, yet don't universally fall under definitions of religion: Astrology and other fortune-telling. Superstitions. Outrageous conspiracy theories. Child genital mutilation. Irrational prejudices based on gender, caste, etc. Unproven "alternative" medical practices. The list goes on (and going on starts to become depressing!).

Any of those may, for people in some times and places, fall under the rubric of religion, but they by no means do so universally. Yet those practices can be just as harmful as the worst of religious dogmas, and deserve equal status as enemies of rational thought.

So if religion isn't quite the right target for pro-reason arguments, what is? Faith. Belief not based on evidence or reason. That target clearly encompasses the harmful religious dogmas we rightly decry, and scoops up irrational belief in divination, lucky numbers, miracle cures, and so on in the process. At the same time, it gives a pass to Christmas carols, religious artwork, traditional funeral practices, and the like, which have innate value with no accompanying belief requirements.

There we go! All neat and clean, right? Unfortunately, no. Shifting our sights from religion to faith leaves us with the same problem of definitions that I started with. Belief not based on evidence or reason – that's faith. Works for me, and probably for many similar-minded atheists, but how about for the faithful? Putting aside the problem of those who'll respond "Belief without evidence? What's wrong with that?", do the faithful even share my definition? Not likely, if only because most probably simply haven't considered what "faith" is, even as they loudly proclaim it in themselves or praise it in others. To be sure, lauding faith without first defining it is a mistake that should be addressed by those who commit it. But until and unless they do, does it make sense for us to attack faith?

I don't have an answer, or a conclusion to this article. Perhaps the answer is to attack faith, taking every opportunity along the way to define it. Or we should just find a better word for "belief without evidence". I do think, though, that we need to set up "belief without evidence" as our target, and begin the long process of making clear to people why that's something to be quashed.

EDIT 2008 06 25: I read an article that suggests many "new atheists" are already ahead of me in railing against not necessarily religion per se, but a somewhat different enemy. And its name is the word I was looking for: dogma. Yes, that's the enemy of science and reason that I want to target. 

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6925

My thanks to author Benjamin O'Donnell for jogging my vocabulary selector!