"Should Science Speak to Faith?"


By Lawrence M. Krauss /Richard Dawkins L. M. クラウス /R. ドーキンス
English 日本語 日本語
Editors’ Introduction
Although the authors are both on the side of science, they have not always agreed about the best ways to oppose religiously motivated threats to scientific practice or instruction. Krauss, a leading physicist, frequently steps into the public spotlight to argue in favor of retaining evolutionary theory in school science curricula and keeping pseudoscientific variants of creationism out of them. An open letter he sent to Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, urging the pontiff not to build new walls between science and faith, led the Vatican to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s acceptance of natural selection as a valid scientific theory.
Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, prolific author and lecturer, is also an eloquent critic of any attempt to undermine scientific reasoning. He has generally shown less interest than Krauss, however, in achieving a peaceful coexistence between science and faith. The title of Dawkins’s best-selling book The God Delusion perhaps best summarizes his opinion of religious belief. 進化生物学者のドーキンスは科学的論法を傷つけようとするあらゆる試みを厳しく批判している。ただし,科学と信仰の平和的共存にはあまり興味を示してこなかった。彼のベストセラー『神は妄想である』(The God Delusion,邦訳は早川書房)の書名が,宗教的信仰に対する彼の意見を最も端的に表している。
These two allies compared notes from the front lines during breaks at a conference devoted to discussing clashes between science and religion held at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego late last year. In a dialogue they re-create here, the authors explained their respective tactics for engaging the enemy and tackled some of the questions that face all scientists when deciding whether and how to talk to the faithful about science: Is the goal to teach science or to discredit religion? Can the two worldviews ever enrich one another? Is religion inherently bad? In an extended version of their conversation available here, the authors also delve into whether science can ever test the “God Hypothesis.” 昨年末,科学と宗教の衝突について議論する会議がサンディエゴにあるソーク生物学研究所で開かれ,この2人が意見を交換した。以下の対話はその内容を再構成したものだ。2人は“敵”と戦うためのそれぞれの戦術を説明し,宗教心にあつい人々を相手に科学について語るべきなのか,語るとしたらどのように語るのかなど,多くの科学者が直面する問題について考察している。科学者が語る目的は科学を教えることなのか,宗教の誤りを示すことなのか。科学と宗教という2つの世界観は互いを豊かにできるのか。宗教は本質的に悪なのか?中身の濃い議論が続いた。 (編集部)
Krauss: Both you and I have devoted a substantial fraction of our time to trying to get people excited about science, while also attempting to explain the bases of our current respective scientific understandings of the universe. So it seems appropriate to ask what the primary goals of a scientist should be when talking or writing about religion. I wonder which is more important: using the contrast between science and religion to teach about science or trying to put religion in its place? I suspect that I want to concentrate more on the first issue, and you want to concentrate more on the second. クラウス あなたも私も,人々に科学に関心を抱いてもらうべくかなりの時間を割いていますし,森羅万象に関する現在の科学的理解の基盤をなすものを説明しようと試みています。そこで,まず次の点から話を始めましょう。科学者が宗教について話したり書いたりするとき,その第一の目的は何であるべきか,という問題です。
I say this because if one is looking to teach people, then it seems clear to me that one needs to reach out to them, to understand where they are coming from, if one is going to seduce them into thinking about science. I often tell teachers, for example, that the biggest mistake any of them can make is to assume that their students are interested in what they are about to say. Teaching is seduction. Telling people, on the other hand, that their deepest beliefs are simply silly―even if they are―and that they should therefore listen to us to learn the truth ultimately defeats subsequent pedagogy. Having said that, if instead the primary purpose in discussing this subject is to put religion in its proper context, then perhaps it is useful to shock people into questioning their beliefs. 私がこれを問題にするのは,人々を教えようとするなら,彼らに歩み寄って考え方を理解する必要があると思うからです。科学について考えるよう彼らを“誘惑”しようとするなら,明らかにこれが必要です。私は学校の教師によく言うのです,どんな教師でも犯しうる最大の誤りは,自分が話そうとしている事柄に生徒たちが関心を抱いていると思い込むことだと。
Dawkins: The fact that I think religion is bad science, whereas you think it is ancillary to science, is bound to bias us in at least slightly different directions. I agree with you that teaching is seduction, and it could well be bad strategy to alienate your audience before you even start. Maybe I could improve my seduction technique. But nobody admires a dishonest seducer, and I wonder how far you are prepared to go in “reaching out.” Presumably you wouldn’t reach out to a Flat Earther. Nor, perhaps, to a Young Earth Creationist who thinks the entire universe began after the Middle Stone Age. But perhaps you would reach out to an Old Earth Creationist who thinks God started the whole thing off and then intervened from time to time to help evolution over the difficult jumps. The difference between us is quantitative, only. You are prepared to reach out a little further than I am, but I suspect not all that much further. ドーキンス 私は宗教がバッド・サイエンスだと考えていますが,あなたは宗教が科学に従属するものだと考えている。この違いによって,私たちの方向性は少し変わってきますね。教えることは誘惑である,という意見には賛成です。聴衆に向かって話し始める前に彼らを離反させてしまうのも,確かにまずい。私の場合,誘惑のテクニックに改良の余地があるようです。
おそらく,フラット・アーサー(地球が平らだと信じている人々)のところまであなたが歩み寄るはずはない。また,宇宙が中期石器時代の後になって始まったと考える「若い地球創造論者(Young Earth Creationist)」にも,たぶん歩み寄らない。でもひょっとすると,神がすべてを創造した後,時おり介入して進化を助け,通常なら困難な進化的ジャンプを引き起こしてきたと考える「古い地球創造論者(Old Earth Creationist)」には,歩み寄るかもしれない。
Krauss: Let me make clearer what I mean by reaching out. I do not mean capitulating to misconceptions but rather finding a seductive way to demonstrate to people that these are indeed misconceptions. Let me give you one example. I have, on occasion, debated both creationists and alien abduction zealots. Both groups have similar misconceptions about the nature of explanation: they feel that unless you understand everything, you understand nothing. In debates, they pick some obscure claim, say, that in 1962 some set of people in Outer Mongolia all saw a flying saucer hovering above a church. Then they ask if I am familiar with this particular episode, and if I say no, they invariably say, “If you have not studied every such episode, then you cannot argue that alien abduction is unlikely to be happening.” クラウス 「歩み寄る」ということの意味を明確にしておきましょう。私がいう「歩み寄り」とは,誤った考えに譲歩することではなく,それらが完全な誤りであることを人々に示す魅惑的な方法を見つけることです。
I have found that I can get each group to think about what they are saying by using the other group as a foil. Namely, of the creationists I ask, “Do you believe in flying saucers?” They inevitably say “no.” Then I ask, “Why? Have you studied all of the claims?” Similarly, to the alien abduction people I ask, “Do you believe in Young Earth Creationism?” and they say “no,” wanting to appear scientific. Then I ask, “Why? Have you studied every single counterclaim?” The point I try to make for each group is that it is quite sensible to base theoretical expectations on a huge quantity of existing evidence, without having studied absolutely every single obscure counterclaim. This “teaching” technique has worked in most cases, except those rare times when it has turned out that I was debating an alien abduction believer who was also a creationist! そこで私は,この論法について考えてもらうために,彼ら自身を利用する手を思いつきました。つまり創造主義者に「空飛ぶ円盤を信じますか」と尋ねるのです。当然答えは「ノー」。そこで私はさらに聞く。「なぜ?この種の主張をすべて調べたのですか」。同様に宇宙人誘拐者説の信者には「若い地球創造説を信じますか」と聞く。彼らは科学的に見られようとして「ノー」と答える。そこで私は尋ねます。「なぜ?個々の反論を漏れなく検討しましたか」──という具合。
Dawkins: I like your clarification of what you mean by reaching out. But let me warn you of how easy it is to be misunderstood. I once wrote in a New York Times book review, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” That sentence has been quoted again and again in support of the view that I am a bigoted, intolerant, closed-minded, intemperate ranter. But just look at my sentence. It may not be crafted to seduce, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact. ドーキンス あなたが言う「歩み寄り」の意味,よくわかりました。説明も素敵でした。でも,それがいかに誤解されやすいか,注意がいりますよ。
私はかつて,New York Times紙の書評欄にこう書いたことがある。「進化を信じないという人は,無知か,愚かか,もしくは非常識であると言って差し支えないだろう(あるいは邪悪である,かもしれないが,そうは考えたくないものだ)」。
Ignorance is no crime. To call somebody ignorant is no insult. All of us are ignorant of most of what there is to know. I am completely ignorant of baseball, and I dare say that you are as completely ignorant of cricket. If I tell somebody who believes the world is 6,000 years old that he is ignorant, I am paying him the compliment of assuming that he is not stupid, insane or wicked. 無知は恥ずべきことではない。誰かのことを無知と呼ぶのは,侮辱でも何でもない。私たちはみな,知りうるほとんどの事柄について無知です。英国人の私は野球に関して完全に無知だし,あなたはクリケットについておそらく完全に無知でしょう。世界の年齢が6000歳だと信じている人に向かって私が「あんたは無知だ」と言った場合,それはほめ言葉ですよ。愚かでもなく,非常識でもなく,邪悪でもないと考えたわけだから。
Krauss: I have to say that I agree completely with you about this. To me, ignorance is often the problem, and, happily, ignorance is most easily addressed. It is not pejorative to suggest that someone is ignorant if they misunderstand scientific issues. クラウス まったくその通りです。私自身の場合,無知はしばしば問題を起こすのですが,幸い,無知には容易に対処できる。誰かが科学的事柄について誤解しているのを無知だと言っても,それは侮辱ではありません。