Why science and religion are not compatible

[westprog]

But that's not an argument in its favor, is it?

The discussion is not over whether religion is probable or justifiable. The argument is over whether it is inherently in conflict with science. Digressions about the likelihood of particular religious beliefs are not the point.

 

[westprog]

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.

You are simultaneously claiming that science can make statements about the existence of god, and that it can't. You're also claiming that religion should conform to the requirements of science - which would make it science, not religion.

 

[westprog]

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.

If the claim is that science has contradicted certain claims made by certain religions, then that is obviously true. To generalise that to say that science can and will contradict all claims made by all religions is IMO either obviously wrong or at the very least not backed up by reasoning or evidence - just an example of the extrapolation fallacy.

 

[westprog]

and is a gross derail, considering that this is a thread about religion and science.
it might be relevant if we were discussing religion and violence, or religion and justice.

And since the pseudo-scientific belief that science has overthrown religion is responsible for its own share of human misery, it doesn't advance the argument.

 

[Humes fork]

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.

Did you read the linked post, or are you content with setting up a strawman?

Of course, religious moral rules are not incompatible with science. But religions make claims about how the universe works (and these claims tend to be pretty damn important to them) and those claims contradict those of science. There you go, incompability.

If you want to talk about moral philosophy, then why don't you say "moral philosophy" instead of "religion"?

 

[westprog]

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?

Do you think that a phrase like "equally moral and motivated" is scientifically meaningful?

 

[westprog]

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

You say that, but you don't back it up. And I've told you how actual scientists back up their science.

 

[Aridas]

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.

To note, I did not say that science and religion would conflict on every point. Most religions make completely untestable and unverifiable claims. I thought that I made it clear that science has no reason, nor way to tread there. Logic may, though, that's a completely different question than the one we're dealing with. I did say that I agreed that the science and religion are not intrinsically incompatible, either way.

Most religions also make claims that fall into the realm of the testable. Generally speaking, those claims have rested on misunderstandings of the nature of reality, and have been found to be blatantly false. These are the claims that science has conflicts with, and are usually of extreme importance in the religion as claims that are there to prove that that particular religion has legitimacy over the multitude of other religions. Naturally, though, the realm of miracles is not handled by science, unless the miracle is no such thing.

Logic and critical thinking encouraged by scientific reasoning, on the other hand, recognizes that the "evidence" and claims of Christianity, when taken in larger contexts, lead one to question even the very supernatural nature of "sin," to consider the incompatibility of the God of the Bible and the God presented to us by present Christian theology, to recognize the sheer *blindly excused* immorality of the Christian God, no less, within the very paradigms of morality that Christian theology attempts to formulate. Again, though, that's not science, as it is known today. Science has just helped us obtain the information needed to recognize it more clearly and demonstrated the usefulness of critical thinking and forming a unified whole with regards to understanding reality.

 

[Humes fork]

The discussion is not over whether religion is probable or justifiable. The argument is over whether it is inherently in conflict with science. Digressions about the likelihood of particular religious beliefs are not the point.

No. It is claimed that religion is not inherently incompatible. We could imagine a universe in which science and (some) religion reach the same conclusions. Then they are compatible. But that is not the universe we live in.

 

[Humes fork]

If the claim is that science has contradicted certain claims made by certain religions, then that is obviously true. To generalise that to say that science can and will contradict all claims made by all religions is IMO either obviously wrong or at the very least not backed up by reasoning or evidence - just an example of the extrapolation fallacy.

But nobody is making that claim.

 

[citizenzen]

No. It is claimed that religion is not inherently incompatible. We could imagine a universe in which science and (some) religion reach the same conclusions. Then they are compatible. But that is not the universe we live in.

Universal knowledge, eh?

I think I just found God.

 

[westprog]

But nobody is making that claim.

If that claim is not made, then necessary incompatibility is not established.

 

[westprog]

Universal knowledge, eh?

I think I just found God.

I think you can see the difference between a scientific and a metaphysical assertion.

 

[Humes fork]

If that claim is not made, then necessary incompatibility is not established.

I have not tried to establish necessary incompability. Will you please stop strawmanning now?

 

[westprog]

I have not tried to establish necessary incompability. Will you please stop strawmanning now?

Then there doesn't seem to be anything particularly interesting in the argument. I'm quite happy to accept that religion conflicts with science when it conflicts with science.

 

[Humes fork]

Then there doesn't seem to be anything particularly interesting in the argument. I'm quite happy to accept that religion conflicts with science when it conflicts with science.

Please read the post linked to in the OP.

 

[westprog]

And, yes, if the kind of reasoning science relies upon is generalized to consider questions outside the scope of science (questions divorced from the laws of nature, and from evaluations of empirical evidence), then one finds incompatibility between that type of generalized reasoning and religion.
But, to so generalize that type of reasoning without justification is “scientism” – a sort of belief in science as a substitute for all forms of reasoning.
To generalize that type of reasoning in a justified way is “metaphysical naturalism” – a philosophical stance.
Of course metaphysical naturalism is incompatible with religion – but that’s not the claim that is ostensibly under discussion.
Of course scientism is incompatible with religion – but that’s not the claim that is ostensibly under discussion.

To believe that a good scientist must assume philosophical naturalism (the natural world is all there is), instead of just following methodological naturalism (always search for natural causes in your work) is wrong.

The above copied from the discussion below the referenced post. I think it sets up the philosophical rebuttal quite well.

The incompatibility between science and religion also doesn’t mean that a person can’t be religious and be a good scientist. That would be a silly claim to make, and if someone pretends that it must be what is meant by “science and religion are incompatible” you can be sure they are setting up straw men.

Hang on a minute. So religion and science are incompatible - but somehow, this doesn't make any difference. How can that be? What sort of incompatibility is this, which allows millions of religious scientists to do good science all around the world? It's fairly abstract, isn't it? In fact, it seems to be an argument without any reasonable conclusions.

If, in fact religion and science are incompatible, then it's not possible to follow a religious belief and be as good a scientist. That's a necessary result of the hypothesis. Ah, but wait. Perhaps it's just a matter of areas in which the scientist operates. A creationist physicist might be able to do good work, while a creationist biologist couldn't.

So we see that a catholic obstetrician, say, who believed that virgin birth was scientifically possible, would be very bad at his job. Er, no. In fact, there are excellent catholic obstetricians. The reason is that catholics don't believe that virgin birth is scientifically possible. In fact, if they did, then it wouldn't be a miracle.

How does the attitude of an atheist biologist and a catholic biologist differ in respect of virgin birth? Philosophically, the difference might be considerable. However, scientifically, their approach will be identical, because a belief that a virgin birth is impossible, and a belief that a virgin birth is miraculous leads to precisely the same way of doing science.

So, as has been pointed out above - there is no incompatibility with religious belief and science. There is an incompatibility with religious belief and other belief systems. Those belief systems might like to call themselves science. They aren't, and science should guard its borders jealously.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

How exactly would one create a testable hypothesis for something that behaves differently in exactly the same circumstances?

Disagree. It only has to follow rules, no matter how convoluted.

 

[citizenzen]

What sort of incompatibility is this ...

To paraphrase the example in the OP's original article ...

You can fly a plane to San Francisco. But you can't ride a goldfish there. Therefore, planes and goldfish are incompatible.

However, to be fair to the OP, it's religion that hasn't been satisfied to remain solely a faith-based institution, and instead has continued to attempt science-like descriptions of the world and beyond.

An airplane and a goldfish are obviously not "compatible". But neither is putting wings on a goldfish and trying to pass it off as an airplane.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If the claim is that science has contradicted certain claims made by certain religions, then that is obviously true. To generalise that to say that science can and will contradict all claims made by all religions is IMO either obviously wrong or at the very least not backed up by reasoning or evidence - just an example of the extrapolation fallacy.

Time to shift paradigms here. What percentage of genomes have we transcribed and what percentage of total species and fossils have we evaluated? Yet we draw a conclusion about biology and the theory of evolution despite not having evaluated 100% of species, genomes and fossils.

Why apply a double standard to religious beliefs (in particular gods and magical beings beliefs) and claim we can't draw a conclusion about the nature of god beliefs until we have evaluated 100% of all religious claims past, present and future?