Why science and religion are not compatible

[Craig B]

Even if the existence of Jesus was completely proven false. There's still the concept of God, or some kind of universal power, that would likely persist.

And if that in its turn were proven false?

But in any event the statement that gods exist is a statement of fact, whether true or false. It is therefore by definition open to scientific examination, and requires to be sustained by evidence, which in my view is not adequately available.

 

[Humes fork]

I do want to clear up one thing ... I am not a Christian. I am not trying to argue for any specific article of Christian faith. What I am trying to point out is that there is room for their faith to exist outside of the constrictions of known scientific knowledge.

The god of the gaps. How original.

And I'm arguing that if scientific knowledge advanced to the point that it could contradict some tenets of faith (in Christianity or any other faith), then you would most likely see that faith evolve to accommodate that new knowledge. Even if the existence of Jesus was completely proven false. There's still the concept of God, or some kind of universal power, that would likely persist.

Uhhm, which century do you live in? Science has already advanced enough to contradict many religious claims. For example that a god created the Earth and all living things, that there was an exodus from Egypt, that entire peoples descend from single persons (especially when the persons in question are mythical), that the sun rotates around the Earth, etc etc etc.

 

[citizenzen]

The god of the gaps. How original.

Damn. I thought I'd made it up.

I'm not trying to argue for it. I'm trying to explain the existence of it.

I don't know why most people cling to the need to feel faith in a religion. They just do. And they will continue to for the foreseeable future.

In the meantime, science still advances.

Whoopie! Everybody's a winner.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
But take the concept Jesus Christ is the son of God, who died for my sins and is my Lord and Savior. What science is incompatible with that? It seems to me that even if we mapped the entire universe and discovered the source and cause of the Big Bang, that concept is not contradicted by science.

Are you talking "concept behind the myth", in which case the evidence there is no life after death is problematic, or, are you talking "historical Jesus was real" in which case the evidence leans toward, not, or, are you talking "historical Jesus was really resurrected" which again the evidence is problematic? As soon as you apply evidence and critical thinking to the myth, it fails.

....Religion explains through speculation and mythology the gaps of knowledge that science can not or has not answered. Will science eventually fill in a sufficient amount of knowledge so that some time in the future religion disappears? Perhaps. But I would suggest that day is pretty far off. And religion—as it has in the past—will reframe itself to remain compatible with what is known.

So for all the discussion about how incompatible these two are, I believe they will remain squabbling, yet intimate bedfellows for many, many years to come. Considering the general sense of enmity and animosity we see in the world today, science and religion are doing okay as a couple. Though I might suggest counseling.

If you are one of those who find a god of the gaps necessary, suit yourself. At what point are you going to wonder why science keeps filling in the gaps while no evidence for the gap god explanations ever appears?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If I were a semi-rational Christian, I'd throw out the virgin birth thing as mythology. Could I show as a matter of fact that Jesus was the son of God? Of course not! That's why it's called faith and not fact.

But it's not merely faith in an abstract concept. People often claim to have a personal and abiding relationship with their Lord. The only science that I can think of that could destroy that faith is if they find the God spot in the brain and by turning it on and off could elicit or erase these feelings.

I have an intimate and abiding personal relationship with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

*zap*

Oops ... it's gone. Never mind. How about them Cowboys?​

To paraphrase your argument, (correct me if I'm wrong), because indoctrinated humans cannot all be turned into critical thinkers erasing their irrational beliefs, that is evidence the irrational beliefs are true.

 

[westprog]

I am trying to think of a way Taoism is incompatible with science, and am coming up short.

Coming up next, a 58 page debate on the definitions and distinctions between religion and philosophy. Woo hoo!


ETA: Or Discordianism. All hail Eris.

Where science and religion deal with entirely different matters, they are compatible. When they deal with the same thing in different ways, they are incompatible.

So, when a religion has as a precept that the Earth is six thousand years old, that's incompatible with science, which has shown, through evidence that this is not the case. It's certainly possible to have areas of incompatibility.

It's also true that there are areas which science does not, and cannot deal with. If religion addresses these areas - morality, purpose, and so on - then there cannot be any incompatibility with science.

There may also be areas where science doesn't, as yet, have anything to say about a subject. It might be that in the future science will be able to produce evidence and theories, but in the meantime, if science doesn't impinge on an area, then the conflict doesn't exist.

So, obviously, the claim that there is inherent, inevitable conflict between science and religion doesn't stand up - the above counter-example of Taoism being one that's obvious.

What is being put forward under the guise of science is in fact the pseudo-scientific science-as-moral-arbiter agenda. This is not science - it's shoddy philosophy rife with unstated assumptions, tailored to fit the materialist who doesn't want to accept the implications of his belief system.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
And I'm arguing that if scientific knowledge advanced to the point that it could contradict some tenets of faith (in Christianity or any other faith), then you would most likely see that faith evolve to accommodate that new knowledge. Even if the existence of Jesus was completely proven false. There's still the concept of God, or some kind of universal power, that would likely persist.

So you are arguing the philosophical position that science will not result in god beliefs fading away. I don't agree. I do think we won't see it in our lifetimes as it could take 1,000 years or more.

But that philosophical position doesn't eliminate the problem that when you apply scientific evidence based critical thinking to god myths, the myths do not stand up to the critical analysis. So the only way religion and science are compatible is when one ignores the other in many areas of belief (or conclusions).

 

[citizenzen]

If you are one of those who find a god of the gaps necessary, suit yourself.

Do you really think I've been advocating for this "God of gaps"?

Is that what you gleaned from my posts?

Geeze ... and I thought I was a skimmer.

 

[westprog]

I have a solid definition of gods and theist/magical being based religions. F-I-C-T-I-O-N. To be more precise, human generated fiction also referred to as myth based beliefs.

Do you consider fiction incompatible with science? Do people choose whether to have science or fiction books in their house?

For you to say, "actual science has no idea if it compatible with religion or not", is an unsupportable claim. For one, who made you spokesperson for science? You don't speak for my evidence based conclusions about theist/magical being religions.

I don't claim to speak for 'science' or all scientists or all critical thinkers. But I am confident that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion gods are fictional human inventions. There is evidence of what god beliefs are, how and why they developed, and there is even the more recent Cargo Cults which provide evidence that the 'gods are fiction' hypothesis predicts.

Science doesn't mean "whatever some person who calls himself a scientist happens to claim". What someone is "confident" about is neither here nor there. Science consists, in practice, of what the peer-reviewed literature says. Revolving around that is a vast maze of pseudo-science, popular science, blogs and pamphlets, which may well claim to be science but isn't.

If someone claims that something is science and can't refer to a paper in Nature or some similar periodical, then their "science" can be safely disregarded. See the 911 conspiracy forum for examples.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
It's also true that there are areas which science does not, and cannot deal with. If religion addresses these areas - morality, purpose, and so on - then there cannot be any incompatibility with science.....

So when the evidence supports the scientific conclusion these things are merely the product of our biology and social interactions, and they are no more 'special' than one's hunger drive, then what? And, when the evidence is clear people with no god beliefs and no religion are equally moral and motivated as those with religion and god beliefs suggesting the god beliefs and religion are not the active variable here, then what?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you really think I've been advocating for this "God of gaps"?

Is that what you gleaned from my posts?

Geeze ... and I thought I was a skimmer.

First, you wouldn't be the only person to post here claiming to be atheist (or whatever you are) while preaching. For some reason some theists believe lying for Jesus is the way to convert. But for the record, until you clarified your position several posts down from the one I answered, I wasn't the only one who took you to be selling the god of the gaps as a valid conclusion. If you have read my follow up post by now, you see I responded to your clarified position.

 

[westprog]

I think you misunderstand the question. It is not whether some people are religious scientists or not it is about whether their beliefs are founded on consistent principles.

It is not uncommon at all for people to have two or more beliefs which contradict each other. Probably most people have such beliefs.

It's necessary, therefore, to show the contradiction. Simply asserting it is there doesn't do so. Nor does pointing out elements of religious belief that conflict with scientific theory. The assertion is that all religion is inherently incompatible with science. This can be justified by pointing out a well-established scientific principle or theory - that is, one that is accepted as true by the scientific consensus, and published in scientific papers or textbooks - and showing how it conflicts with all possible religious belief.

Alternatively, some vague hand-waving as seen in the OP might do.

 

[westprog]

Science and religion are not compatible.

Science is a method for determing facts with the greatest degree of probability of being correct.

Religion makes factual claims about the universe without using that method.

Ergo if you claim to be doing them both, you're doing one of them wrong.

Yes people do compartmentalize their lives to the point where they can have both, but that's not really the same as them being compatible.

If you claim to be doing both at once, then obviously you are doing one of them wrong. If you are clear that there is a difference between scientific and religious claims, then there is no incompatibility.

A claim, for example, that it is possible to scientifically derive a moral principle is an example of "doing it wrong", as is a claim that the world is six thousand years old.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you consider fiction incompatible with science? Do people choose whether to have science or fiction books in their house?

As long as the fiction is recognized as fiction, there is no problem. Of course, with god beliefs that is not the case.

Science doesn't mean "whatever some person who calls himself a scientist happens to claim". What someone is "confident" about is neither here nor there. Science consists, in practice, of what the peer-reviewed literature says. Revolving around that is a vast maze of pseudo-science, popular science, blogs and pamphlets, which may well claim to be science but isn't.

If someone claims that something is science and can't refer to a paper in Nature or some similar periodical, then their "science" can be safely disregarded. See the 911 conspiracy forum for examples.

Formal science is just as incompatible with god beliefs as informal science.

 

[westprog]

I'm sorry. But none of that makes a bit of sense to me.

It's a retreat to inappropriate analogy.

 

[westprog]

It's simple. If you think science is just something you do sometimes and not others, what you are doing is not science. Science is an concept you can't just turn on and off.

The second you decide "Well with this one thing, I'm not going to use science. I'm going to use something else." then you are no longer using science.

To clarify my earlier comparison it's like saying you are law abiding because you follow the law... except when you don't want to.

That's not incompatibility. That's simply not using science where science is not applicable. As has been pointed out on innumerable occasions on this forum, when people are making personal decisions, it is necessary that they use non-scientific criteria. When a scientist chooses what to have for breakfast, a spouse, or a shirt, then there is an inevitable non-scientific aspect to their choice. They cannot make their decision based on science alone. The belief that they can make any decision using only scientific criteria is not a scientific belief. It's a cargo-cult misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of science and it's just as harmful and unscientific as creationism.

 

[westprog]

Even when you go to sleep?



Even if you're selecting a CD to listen to or a birthday present for someone?

If that's the case then I think your notion of using science must be rather broad.

Or wrong. I think "wrong" covers it nicely.

 

[westprog]

I wouldn't say this is entirely true, as there are certain things accepted as axiomatic in science that are founded on assumptions (or "leaps of faith", if you prefer ). For example, we have to assume that the universe is consistent in order to be able to apply the scientific method at all.

Although personally I believe this is a pretty safe assumption, the fact that the universe appears to be consistent from our point of view does not mean it always has been or always will be.

It's important to recognise that while in religion, there's an actual belief system involved. In science, there's simply a working hypothesis that's open to disproof. Scientists may or may not have a belief that this working hypothesis is actually true, but that belief is not part of science. Indeed, scientists often like nothing better than a discovery that overthrows their most fundamental assumptions. When modern physics arrived at the start of the twentieth century, there was enormous conflict on a philosophical level about the "true" nature of the universe, and whether the new discoveries could be properly interpreted according to one model or another. Meanwhile, science continued in its proper role - garnering data and making predictions.

When people become attached to the working hypotheses of science and decide to treat them as fundamental truth, whatever they are doing, it isn't science.

 

[westprog]

Like in quantum events, for instance?
You move to assuming each outcome has odds.

That's how science adapted itself from a deterministic to a non-deterministic universe. There were people claiming that non-determinism would break science. The scientists just changed their working assumptions. Science carried on.

 

[geni]

You are ignoring what I said and substituting your own version. That is called a straw man argument. If you want to comment on what I've posted, pay attention to what I posted.

Evidence exists. The scientific process is a means of evaluating that evidence and drawing conclusions about how the Universe works and describing the Universe.

"scientific process" you keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means. Although since I think that Feyerabend had an extremely good argument I would question if the term can be said to mean anything.

ALL the evidence about god beliefs that exists leads to the conclusion god beliefs are fictional constructs people invented to explain what they observed. NO evidence suggests real gods or ETs ever interacted with humans.

Again this is only a relatively small part of the problem.

End of story.

No need to construct god concepts that might exist but which are not testable. No need to start with the conclusion, gods might exist, and try to disprove that hypothesis.

In fact thats exactly what falsificationism (one of the more popular attempts to describe the scientific process) would suggest you do.

That's your prerogative. Personally I find there is more than sufficient evidence to call all gods, human generated fiction.

Then your position requires that there is no other intelligent life in the universe or that other intelligent life is unable to generate gods. While this is allowable within our current understanding of physics it wouldn't generaly be considered likely.

Apparently you don't understand the definition of fiction as I used it.

Then feel free to elaborate.

Got any examples? Because your claim is nonsense IMO.

Examples of what? Research programs? Newtonian physics would usualy be considered the classic example. Lewis structures in chemistry might be another.

I have no clue what you mean here.

I already suspected as much. It's reference to an outdated philosophy of science that your version of the scientific process appears closest to.

The statement was mostly to confirm that not only are you unwilling to consider the totality of religion but you don't know much about the work into what science actualy is either.

Totally misconstrues what I said. Who said anything about a random mishmash of data? And if you seriously think the theory comes first and the data collection second, you don't understand how VIABLE hypotheses and theories are generated.

Again thats Experimentalism. The problem is it doesn't really describe what is going on. No only to scientists tend to generate theories first and then go looking for data (did anyone go looking for oxygen being paramagnetic before MO theory turned up?) but they then interpret the data in the light of that theory. They will even flat out ignore data that contradicts their theory (for example Einstein's theories originally produced the result that the universe was only ~100K years old at the time we knew the earth to be older).

Bad analogy. Time is real. It is observable. Generating hypotheses considering the nature of time is perfectly legitimate using the scientific process.

Except the models aren't testable and don't seem to tell us much about the universe we are in. The only question they answer is "is general relativity consistent with time travel"

But one does not generate hypotheses that time is blue, for example. Because there is nothing contained within the observations of time that suggests color is a component of time.

There is nothing contained within the observations of time that suggest that time travel is possible. Its just that our current models allow it.