I’ve long felt that when people debate science and religion that they are doing it all wrong. Both sides foam and froth, and bring their own pet prejudices, but in my opinion, it’s all apples and oranges.

Here’s how I break it down:

Science = Theory(Facts)
Religion = Belief(Faith)

This is a mathematical representation of this: Science is a function of Theories that require Facts as their foundation; likewise, Religion is a function of Belief that require Faith for it to exist.

And that’s where the apples vs oranges comes in: faith by its very definition does not require facts. If someone had a strong belief that the moon was made of cheese, all he needs is to make a leap of faith — facts that prove or disprove his belief won’t make a difference.

So I found myself at a book reading this past thursday at the Barnes & Noble in Greenwich Village to hear Victor Stenger talk about his new bestselling book: God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.

The purpose of the book is obvious from the title — to logically and scientifically prove that God does not exist.

It is a theme, no make that a call to arms, that is being taken up more frequently and more confidently these days by scientists. Besides Stenger, there’s Sam Harris, and the doyen of the entire movement, Richard Dawkins.

At the book reading, Stenger, born and raised Catholic in Bayonne, NJ, made the observation that the real battle between scientists and religious fundamentalists is one of rationalism versus superstition.

Some other observations he made:

• The Bush administration, more than any other in recent memory, has based its policies on faith versus scientific consensus and evidence. I can understand the value of religious faith in one’s life, for those who want it, but it’s a very different thing to form policy solely on it and ignore science just because it doesn’t support it (or worse yet, selectively supporting the scientific facts that do support it).

• There is growing evidence that the new fields of ‘evolutionary biology’ and ‘evolutionary psychology’ can explain a biological basis for our morals and values. In fact, last week’s Science Times had an article on whether our primate forbearers had the upper hand over the Neanderthals because they used moral behavior in a cooperative fashion.

• Just because Man has not yet found a natural explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that there is a supernatural one.

I found the entire reading fascinating but far too short. Being the kind of man who speaks his mind, I had to crack that I strongly believe that creationism should be taught in science class… provided that science can be taught in Sunday School. (And I volunteered to start off with astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology).

One question that I wished I had time to ask, and will have to be the subject of a future post is whether science can prove we have souls.

Ah, well.

Technorati Tags: science, religion

“Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

And I traded with her that one of my favorite Einstein quotes is “If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, now would it?”

(This is what I have above my desk at work and pretty much describes what I do all day long.)

Two other quotes that are taped over my desk:

“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.” — Niels Bohr (founded field of quantum physics)

“Basic research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I’m doing.” — Wernher Von Braun (father of US modern rocketry program that culminated in Apollo moon landings)

Fill your craving for clever bon mots (but maybe not bonbons) by going to BrainyQuote.

We need to stop thinking about the psychological aspects and really think about the important big picture: SEX IN SPACE.

It’s going to be a long, looong trip. Those people are going to have to amuse themselves somehow. How about masturbation in zero gravity? What if the spillage clogs up the instruments? Eewww!

Never mind. I’m tired, I don’t feel well and it’s late.

I mean, she carried a set of adult diapers to save the time — now that’s what I call being prepared.

On the other hand, the scientist-type in me says I hope NASA gets “good data” (as scientists-types all over are wont to say). Seriously, NASA is spending a lot of money and research to understand how men and women adapt to the stresses of isolation and loneliness in space. The crew aboard the International Space Station (ISS) usually spends 6-12 months at a time living with each other. There are too many variables to know exactly what can happen out in the cold depths of space.

And when we do send humans to Mars, they may be gone for almost two years.

(So what should the first Martian crew look like? All seasoned military men like it was for the first Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle missions? Perhaps we keep them mixed? And what about their status? All single? Or married? Or asexually-identified post-op transexual?)