Why science and religion are not compatible

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

In context, absolutely. If I am exploring the nature of the brain and I want to investigate the source of moral beliefs and human motivation self described as 'purpose of life' then such an investigation is clearly meaningful scientifically.

The claim is made repeatedly that religions are the source of moral beliefs. They may add a few rules like eating pork is sinful or homosexuality is 'bad'. But by far the vast majority of true human morality is not based in religious beliefs. Nor is that morality based on philosophical contemplation.

If one uses the scientific process to evaluate the variables which result in moral beliefs and behaviors, biology, specifically nature and nurture, are by far the dominant variable.

 

[westprog]

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?

Since science has been 100% ineffective in dealing with metaphysical or moral issues, there's no reason to suppose that this will at some stage translate into being even 1% effective.

 

[westprog]

In context, absolutely. If I am exploring the nature of the brain and I want to investigate the source of moral beliefs and human motivation self described as 'purpose of life' then such an investigation is clearly meaningful scientifically.

The claim is made repeatedly that religions are the source of moral beliefs. They may add a few rules like eating pork is sinful or homosexuality is 'bad'. But by far the vast majority of true human morality is not based in religious beliefs. Nor is that morality based on philosophical contemplation.

If one uses the scientific process to evaluate the variables which result in moral beliefs and behaviors, biology, specifically nature and nurture, are by far the dominant variable.

I think that most religious beliefs are espoused by biological entities.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

I have backed it up. Just because I don't cite some single experimental study that you can digest in 2 minutes, does not mean I have not described the scientific evidence supporting my conclusions. Some areas of investigation are extensive and complex and not amenable to demonstration with some over simplistic evidence.

Anthropology, sociology and biology all have large contributions to be made regarding the conclusion that god beliefs are fictional human creations. There is zero evidence that humans ever interacted with real gods. One need merely look at the ancient god beliefs that are almost universally recognized as myths, aka human generated fiction, to realize current god beliefs are not essentially any different.

That you aren't personally satisfied with the overwhelming evidence supporting my conclusion is not my problem. It is yours. I'm very comfortable and confident the evidence supports my claims.

 

[citizenzen]

The claim is made repeatedly that religions are the source of moral beliefs.

I am squarely on the side that religion is not the sole source of morality or ethical behavior.

However, if one applies the same standard as in the OP's article, then compatibility can be established on this point.

Both morality derived through religion and morality derived without it get a person to the same place: living an ethical life. Thus compatibility (on this aspect of religion) as measured by the OP's standard is proven.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

A totally false analogy. Sorry, try again.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since science has been 100% ineffective in dealing with metaphysical or moral issues, there's no reason to suppose that this will at some stage translate into being even 1% effective.

Talk about unsupported claims.

Define "effectively dealing with".

 

[westprog]

I have backed it up. Just because I don't cite some single experimental study that you can digest in 2 minutes, does not mean I have not described the scientific evidence supporting my conclusions. Some areas of investigation are extensive and complex and not amenable to demonstration with some over simplistic evidence.

Anthropology, sociology and biology all have large contributions to be made regarding the conclusion that god beliefs are fictional human creations. There is zero evidence that humans ever interacted with real gods. One need merely look at the ancient god beliefs that are almost universally recognized as myths, aka human generated fiction, to realize current god beliefs are not essentially any different.

That you aren't personally satisfied with the overwhelming evidence supporting my conclusion is not my problem. It is yours. I'm very comfortable and confident the evidence supports my claims.

Using anthropological research to determine metaphysical beliefs might be valuable and interesting, but it cannot be an infallible guide to truth. It might be possible to do psychological research that would show the motivations of the people who derived quantum theory. That would have no relevance to the objective truth of quantum theory.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am squarely on the side that religion is not the sole source of morality or ethical behavior.

However, if one applies the same standard as in the OP's article, then compatibility can be established on this point.

Both morality derived through religion and morality derived without it get a person to the same place: living an ethical life. Thus compatibility (on this aspect of religion) as measured by the OP's standard is proven.

I can wear a blue blouse or a red one. But that doesn't mean that red and/or blue are the "source of" or the "reason for" my clothes. The colors are an expression of my clothes choices.

Where is your evidence that religion is a source and not result of moral belief? If I am just as moral with or without religion, maybe all I'm doing is fitting a religion to my existing morality.

I think the only 'morality' religions add to peoples' behavior and beliefs are the arbitrary definitions of "sin" like food and clothing rituals and some arbitrary social rules involving sex. Monogamy, polygamy and homosexuality seem to be common religious targets for moral rules. But societies can make these same rules without god beliefs so it is more likely the society is influencing the moral belief more than the religion is. In some cases the religion might be integrated into the social behavior. None of this suggests the god beliefs are the source of moral beliefs, rather the religion is an expression of the moral beliefs. Evidence for this can be seen when one notices that there is a wide range of moral rules of Islamic and Christian societies which vary by country and culture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Using anthropological research to determine metaphysical beliefs might be valuable and interesting, but it cannot be an infallible guide to truth. It might be possible to do psychological research that would show the motivations of the people who derived quantum theory. That would have no relevance to the objective truth of quantum theory.

You ignored the example I cited regarding known ancient myths. How do the current Jesus myths differ from past Zeus myths?

 

[westprog]

You ignored the example I cited regarding known ancient myths. How do the current Jesus myths differ from past Zeus myths?

How does that relate to the incompatibility between science and religion?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think that most religious beliefs are espoused by biological entities.

"Espoused by" is not what I said. "The source of" is what I said.

Humans generate god beliefs intellectually/consciously, while moral behaviors are not intellectual fiction, rather they are the result of brain function and social interactions, aka nature and nurture. You wouldn't say Harry Potter was a nature/nurture creation except in an abstract sense. But a natural tendency to not want to murder people is more directly part of our natural brain function. You are born with an aversion to murder hardwired into your brain. We know this because the ability to murder is an aberrancy. We can teach soldiers to murder and they can. But we don't teach them not to murder first as children. The people who do murder can usually be shown to have learned that behavior through a bad childhood, or they can be shown to have particular brain damage such as a sociopath or psychopath.

There have been some hypotheses about the 'god' gene, and a 'believer' brain. I await further research in this area of brain function before drawing the conclusion god beliefs matter more than simply a dependent personality.

 

[citizenzen]

Where is your evidence that religion is a source and not result of moral belief? If I am just as moral with or without religion, maybe all I'm doing is fitting a religion to my existing morality.

It seems to me that the establishing of moral boundaries is one of the key aspects of religion. Would you have established boundaries without it? Yes. I think you would. Would they be exactly the same boundaries set with or without religion? No I don't believe they would be.

There's no reason to deny any influence, either good or bad from religion.

You won't lose your atheist card.

At least I wouldn't take it away.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How does that relate to the incompatibility between science and religion?

Oh for pity's sake. Can you not follow a discussion without having to have it read back to you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems to me that the establishing of moral boundaries is one of the key aspects of religion. Would you have established boundaries without it? Yes. I think you would. Would they be exactly the same boundaries set with or without religion? No I don't believe they would be.

There's no reason to deny any influence, either good or bad from religion.

You won't lose your atheist card.

At least I wouldn't take it away.

I don't carry an atheist card, I carry a critical thinker's card. Critical thinking results in the conclusion that gods are fiction.

The bottom line: humans do not need god beliefs to be moral, therefore the argument, god beliefs fulfill some need not otherwise met in a scientific evidence based world, falls flat.

The scientific evidence based world, OTOH, results in the conclusion gods are fiction. Thus science is not compatible with theist religions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"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.

The Free Dictionary redirects "scientific process" to "scientific method":

sci·en·tif·ic method ...
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
scientific method ...
a systematic, ordered approach to the gathering of data and the solving of problems. The basic approach is the statement of the problem followed by the statement of a hypothesis. An experimental method is established to help confirm or negate the hypothesis. The results of the experiment are observed, and conclusions are drawn from observed results. The conclusions may tend to uphold or to refute the hypothesis.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
scientific method,
n a formal style of study or research in which a problem is identified, pertinent information is assembled, a hypothesis is advanced and tested empirically, and the hypothesis is accepted or rejected.
Mosby's Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
scientific method
the process of extending knowledge by forming a hypothesis based on observations and epidemiological patterns, which is then tested on a subset of the total population, then generalizing the results to the appropriate population through the process of inductive logic. Before implementation of the hypotheses they should be tested by studies planned on the basis that the hypothesis will be proved or denied.
Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, 3 ed. © 2007 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved

Yep, that what I thought it meant.

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

What problem would that be?

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

The problem here is you are falsifying the wrong hypothesis. Why waste time chasing hypotheses for which there is no reason to consider? Once cannot falsify the hypothesis that Harry Potter's world is not real. Why would you bother when the evidence is clear that HP's Hogwarts is a fictional place?

The hypothesis which is evidence based is, "humans generate god beliefs". That can be falsified. The hypothesis, gods exist, which cannot be disproved is like saying, HP's Hogwarts exists, prove it does not.

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.

I have no problem with the hypothesis that an alien encounter, an advanced civilization encountering a less advanced one, could generate a god belief. That concept is evidenced by the Cargo Cults.

But there is no evidence an alien civilization visited Earth and god beliefs resulted. If you have evidence of this hypothesis it would be worth investigating. But just because someone can imagine it does not create evidence. I can imagine HP's Hogwarts just fine. Is there now evidence HP's Hogwarts exists?

Then feel free to elaborate [on the definition of fiction as I used it].

Stories people make up. What do you think I meant?

Let's go back through the exchange:

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.

So is pretty much all of science outside some pretty narrow areas. Our models are no more than fictions (that generaly provide somewhat useful results) and all the models we currently have were created by human beings.

You are using a definition of fiction that is useless. If you cannot distinguish between a work of fiction such as the Harry Potter series or mythical Greek gods and the theory of evolution or plate tectonics, of what use is the term, fiction?

I can distinguish between them but not when using the word fiction in the context that you initially did.

Sorry, whatever objection you have to my claim that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, gods are fictional constructs people invented, you have failed to make your objection clear here.

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

Well let's go back to the exchange again:

Well Lakatos would argue that the current theory of gravity (which we know is at best incomplete BTW) makes for a progressive research program while harry potter and zeus would not. Of course there is no useful way of showing that a religion can't make for a progressive research program (in fairness it's far from clear that it is possible to show that any given research program is progressive)

(emphasis mine)

Got any examples? Because your claim is nonsense IMO.

What I am saying is you make no sense. Where is it you are addressing what I said, follow the evidence? Where are you addressing what I said, don't start with the conclusion gods are real and look for evidence, start with the evidence and follow where it leads? Where are you addressing what I said, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, gods are fictional constructs people invented?

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

An outdated version of science? And here I was sure I was ahead of the crowd.

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.

Clearly I disagree.

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).

So are there scientists looking to disprove HP's Hogwarts exists? If not, why not?

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"

You are off into some thought process here well beyond the facts as I have presented them. There is evidence people made up god beliefs. It's pretty straight forward. No magic, no mystery, no 'metaphysical' or bizarre hypotheses involved. Just a simple 'follow the evidence don't try to fit the evidence to the conclusion' concept.

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

And this is relevant to, "the evidence supports the conclusion people made up god myths, there is no evidence real encounters with gods occurred", how?

 

[Minoosh]

Even very primative creatures struggle mightily to avoid dying. What humans add to the mix is a "magic" way to escape dying, i.e. an afterlife. And even though such a thing is ridiculous from start to finish, many, maybe even most humans will believe some form of life-after-death. Why do you think that is? Certainly not because of any evidence. All of the evidence is against it. But fear will make people deny evidence and make up the most incredible stories.

Of course creatures will try to avoid dying; it's instinct, survival of the species, etc. But why do we fear being dead? It's not at all obvious to me. I also wonder what "all of the evidence is against" an afterlife means in practice. Do you mean there is no evidence for, or is there evidence against that I'm missing?

 

[kerikiwi]

Once cannot falsify the hypothesis that Harry Potter's world is not real. Why would you bother when the evidence is clear that HP's Hogwarts is a fictional place?

The hypothesis that Harry Potter's world is not real most certainly can be falsified.
How else do you feel able to assert that it is clearly a fictional place?

 

[kerikiwi]

But why do we fear being dead? It's not at all obvious to me.

Those who do not fear being dead are likely to become dead sooner than those who do not fear being dead.
The sooner they are dead, the fewer chances they have of passing on their not afraid to be dead genes.

 

[FireGarden]

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

The quote you give indicates how science and religion get along:
"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."

But the article uses a different definition of incompatible: that the two have contradictory conclusions. Getting along, being able to exist together (even in the same person), is a seperate kind of compatibility.

In terms of contradictory conclusions, science and religion as we know it are incompatible.

If we generalise to all possible religions, then we have to ask: what conclusions must a religion reach? And the answer is: none. But I see that as poor grounds to conclude consistency with science.

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.

I think that's explained above. The thing to do is avoid mixing defintions of 'incompatible'.

The article does say that some harm arises out of religion, with the implication that this would be avoided without religion.

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.

Then we have the whole question of miracles being compatible with science.