"Would a person committed to seeking truth and avoiding error believe in God, given the evidence and reasons available to her? That's the real issue." Assistant Professor of Philosophy Jason Brennan's question at the outset of last night's Janus Conversation, "Can God Exist?" set the tone for the evening, in which he and Professor of Biology Kenneth Miller '70 P'02 spoke for about 20 minutes each to an energetic audience that nearly filled List 120.
Brennan and Miller concerned themselves less with the precise question for which the event was named than with an assessment of the relationship between theism and science. They shared the point of view that religion and science are compatible and agreed that, as Miller said, it would be ridiculous to make science the enemy of God.
It's a stereotype, Miller said, that "science is at war with religious faith." But neither his nor Brennan's positions were in line with that idea. The question of the evening, was, as Miller posed it, "Is religion reasonable in an age of science?"
Brennan set out to prove that each person should grapple with that question for his or her own benefit.
He pointed out that many beliefs that are insulated from or simply not incompatible with science, and thus cannot be disproved, do not necessarily merit serious consideration. He used the example of a hypothetical belief that an invisible demon was living in his refrigerator as an idea that cannot be disproved by science.
"It would be dumb to actually believe" such a notion, "and it would even be dumb to be agnostic about it," he said.
Brennan added that many theistic beliefs are just as impossible to disprove as the existence of invisible demons.
"I'm not here to argue against theism, and I'm not saying that theists are making a bunch of bunk claims," Brennan said. Instead, he issued a warning for theists from a philosophical standpoint. "You want to make sure you have actual reasons for what you say," he said.
Miller took a different tack to illustrate a similar position.
Miller sought to debunk the "stereotype" he outlined of faith's necessary conflict with science, saying, "It's self-evident that science can be done and done well by people with faith," specifically citing the career of Georges Lamaitre, the Belgian scientist and priest who Miller said suggested the idea of an expanding universe to Albert Einstein. As far as religion and science are concerned, a person need not side with one and abandon the other, he said.
His idea, rather, was that the immaterial can be real in the same way that truth can. He extolled the virtues of thought and reason and said that, just as scientists pursue the truth of the material world, "the first devotion of any person of faith should be to truth."
Though the two lecturers walked the audience through two different academic fields and arguments, they ended up in similar places. Their shared message was that there can be a place for God in an age of science — Miller asked those with faith to employ their spirituality in the pursuit of truth, while Brennan suggested that people reach their beliefs through reason.
The audience offered up a number of questions after the lecture, including skeptical inquiries regarding the compatibility of science and religion.
Miller responded to an audience member's questions about why God would choose evolution, a "really nasty way to make people," as the method for creating humans. Miller's response, indicative of the tone of the evening as a whole, recognized the quest for truth inherent in scientific material analysis and religious immaterial experiences.
"It's a reality of life that every living thing will someday die," Miller said. In a world with no pain or death, "there's no need for medicine, there's no need to discover. That is, to me, a world in which human beings would be forever held in a juvenile state ... (with) absolutely nothing to struggle with and nothing to strive for."
The Janus Fellows organized the evening's conversation, their second of the year.
