Why science and religion are not compatible

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

So your evidence Hogwarts does not exist is what? Muggles cannot see it so it is not observable.

I know it is fiction the same way I know the god in the Bible is fiction. The only evidence for Hogwarts is in a book.

 

[Leumas]

So your evidence Hogwarts does not exist is what? Muggles cannot see it so it is not observable.

I know it is fiction the same way I know the god in the Bible is fiction. The only evidence for Hogwarts is in a book.

We certainly know there is a London and that is mentioned in the Chronicles Of Harry Potter. This is a very conclusive indication to the Historicity of the COHP. It is a very good Extra-Potteral evidence.

Another AMAZING indication of the Historical Veracity of the COHP is that we discovered Charring Cross Station and there were platforms 8 and 9 so it is only logical that there has to be platform 8.5. It is only a matter of time before we find it. Just like you A-Potterists keep telling us that the missing link will be found sooner or later.

Besides....we also discovered what CERTAINLY looks like the Hogwath School. From the descriptions in the COHP the School we found has the same architectural structure but without all the floating candles in the Dining hall.

For all appearances it seems to have been taken over by Muggles and converted to be their school but that might be just what the Wizards want us to think.

Besides….it is a matter of faith and science has no bearing on the matter according to NOMA.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So your evidence Hogwarts does not exist is what? Muggles cannot see it so it is not observable.

I know it is fiction the same way I know the god in the Bible is fiction. The only evidence for Hogwarts is in a book.

I certainly hope you don't claim that if the only evidence for something is that it is found in a book means that bit of information is fiction.

I find your assertion that you know that the God of the bible is fiction the same way that you know Hogwarts does not exist to be specious at best. To ignore genre considerations is disingeneous. We approach different works in different ways depending on their genre; what words mean depends on their context within genre conventions.

 

[westprog]

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.

Unfortunately, what he claims to be conclusions of science are in fact, his own conclusions, which he has labelled as science.

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

That's merely tautological. Where contradictory conclusions are reached - for example, where someone's religious belief says that the Earth is six thousand years old - then there's a contradiction. The claim is that any and all supernatural beliefs are in some way contradictory to science. This requires a mistaken belief about what science is, and how it works.

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.



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.



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

If science is a belief system, with dogmas and heresies - if, in fact, science is to take on the trappings of religion - then yes, there will be contradictions. Keep science as science - as a methodology, a way to find out about the world - and there won't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I certainly hope you don't claim that if the only evidence for something is that it is found in a book means that bit of information is fiction.

I find your assertion that you know that the God of the bible is fiction the same way that you know Hogwarts does not exist to be specious at best. To ignore genre considerations is disingeneous. We approach different works in different ways depending on their genre; what words mean depends on their context within genre conventions.

It was just a bit of literary license on my part. Clearly there is more evidence that gods are mythical beings. The fact there is no evidence of the Biblical god except in the book suggests the source of the story is fiction. The conclusion is strengthened by the fact that a lot of things that should be there if a supernatural being inspired the Bible are not there.

In the case of Harry Potter, we know the fiction writer and that adds to the evidence. And while we don't have that same advantage with the Bible, there is a vast amount of additional evidence that gods are mythical beings humans invented.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It was just a bit of literary license on my part. Clearly there is more evidence that gods are mythical beings. The fact there is no evidence of the Biblical god except in the book suggests the source of the story is fiction. The conclusion is strengthened by the fact that a lot of things that should be there if a supernatural being inspired the Bible are not there.

In the case of Harry Potter, we know the fiction writer and that adds to the evidence. And while we don't have that same advantage with the Bible, there is a vast amount of additional evidence that gods are mythical beings humans invented.

Much better answer. The earlier one didn't sound like you but this one does. I agree. We have lots of evidence that humans invent gods.

 

[Leumas]

If a sunflower, a rat, an amoeba, a tarantula, a sequoia redwood, a bristle cone pine, a whale and Obama all share the same genetic code, that suggests common ancestry to me. I'll buy into that. But how these organisms were derived from the same primordial ancestor is not a question answered by the observation of evidence which supports common ancestry. If somebody says to me, "Well, bacteria become resistant to penicillin when doctors over treat, or inappropriately treat too many patients with penicillin". I'll grant that natural selection accounts for the bacteria becoming PCN resistant. But I am certainly not entitled to jump from there to the conclusion that given the penicillin resistance example, Obama, the whale and the sunflower are linked to a common ancestor through the process of selection pressure squeezing chance mutations in the direction of these three very different biological outcomes. Showing evidence for common ancestry does not give one the right to claim natural selection is the driving force behind the commonality.

Just consider the DOG.... the dog is an animal EVOLVED by HUMAN SELECTION.

The AMAZING variety of dogs (height, speed, intelligence, looks etc. etc.) are all EVOLVED due to a SELECTION but by humans. This caused an ACCELERATED evolution and dogs have only existed at most in the last 15 to 20 thousand years.

So in such an EXTREMELY short time look at what genetic variation has evolved out of the same original gene (the wolf).

Same with Pigeons by the way....

Have a look at this video






=>


Also see this video (part 1 of 6 but should proceed to the next part automatically)

 

[FireGarden]

If science is a belief system, with dogmas and heresies - if, in fact, science is to take on the trappings of religion - then yes, there will be contradictions. Keep science as science - as a methodology, a way to find out about the world - and there won't.

Science being a methodology doesn't mean that it doesn't reach conclusions. It does, even if those conclusions are subject to change.

 

[westprog]

Science being a methodology doesn't mean that it doesn't reach conclusions. It does, even if those conclusions are subject to change.

Yes, but they are conclusions, not axioms. Science derives its conclusions using observations and certain working assumptions. These working assumptions (for example, the uniformity of the laws of nature) are not to be considered as something to be "believed" in some Act of Faith. They are compatible with the universe as we have experienced it - but we should always be open to contradiction. It's not something that we expect to happen, but sometimes it does - for example, causality was a working assumption of science until it was removed by quantum theory. People who subscribed to the scientism of the era found the removal of causality unacceptable. People who subscribed to science accepted the change, and proceeded accordingly.

The conclusions that science arrives at are very carefully considered generalisations and predictions based on controlled experiments and observations. Science attempts to find pattern and order in events, so that we can surmise what will happen next.

 

[Humes fork]

Yes, but they are conclusions, not axioms.

FFS, you have been told that science and religion are not a priori incompatible! As I told you, we could imagine a universe in which science and (some) religion reached the same conclusions, but that's not the universe we live in. In our universe, science and religion (as mostly understood) reach different conclusions.

 

[Minoosh]

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

"Nurture" is biology?

I would have though religion would fall under "nurture."

The premise of the OP is that science and religion are not compatible. I don't really understand what's meant by that. Belief in gods or God hasn't stopped science in its tracks. Human curiosity and human expressions of religion have often existed side by side. You can cite the case of Galileo, but bear in mind that the Catholic Church a) didn't stop astronomy from happening and b) eventually modified its own dogma to accommodate the findings of astronomy.

In fact most of the world's science was happening in one of the world's most religious places by some of the world's most religious people - wasn't it? Religion actually offered pretty good cover to plain old greed which really helped drive science and technology.

Maybe someone can tell me about the connotations of the phrase "God of the gaps" - because I get the sense it's derisive. But I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't have the math to understand the Big Bang and, laugh at me if you will, if the universe started with the Big Bang I will always ask, "But what happened before the Big Bang?" I don't doubt evolution but still ask myself, "Why life? Why didn't matter stay inanimate?"

I don't see persuasive evidence that science and religion are incompatible.

 

[Humes fork]

"Nurture" is biology?

I would have though religion would fall under "nurture."

The premise of the OP is that science and religion are not compatible. I don't really understand what's meant by that. Belief in gods or God hasn't stopped science in its tracks. Human curiosity and human expressions of religion have often existed side by side. You can cite the case of Galileo, but bear in mind that the Catholic Church a) didn't stop astronomy from happening and b) eventually modified its own dogma to accommodate the findings of astronomy.

In fact most of the world's science was happening in one of the world's most religious places by some of the world's most religious people - wasn't it? Religion actually offered pretty good cover to plain old greed which really helped drive science and technology.

Maybe someone can tell me about the connotations of the phrase "God of the gaps" - because I get the sense it's derisive. But I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't have the math to understand the Big Bang and, laugh at me if you will, if the universe started with the Big Bang I will always ask, "But what happened before the Big Bang?" I don't doubt evolution but still ask myself, "Why life? Why didn't matter stay inanimate?"

I don't see persuasive evidence that science and religion are incompatible.

If you had bothered to read the post to which the OP linked (which you evidently didn't, because then you wouldn't have brought these strawmen to the table), you would have found that science and religion are incompatible because they reach different conclusions.

 

[FireGarden]

Yes, but they are conclusions, not axioms.

Yes, but I don't see the relevance of pointing it out.

Scientific conclusions disagree with religious conclusions. That is the incompatiblity being pointed out.

There are other senses in which science and religion are compatible. The article in the OP made explicit which kind of compatibility it was addressing.

 

[citizenzen]

If you had bothered to read the post to which the OP linked (which you evidently didn't, because then you wouldn't have brought these strawmen to the table), you would have found that science and religion are incompatible because they reach different conclusions.

They are only strawmen in the sense that they don't adhere to the definition of compatibility set forth in the original article. There is however, no compelling reason to accept that narrow definition, except perhaps to frame and focus the debate in this particular thread.

 

[Minoosh]

If you had bothered to read the post to which the OP linked (which you evidently didn't, because then you wouldn't have brought these strawmen to the table), you would have found that science and religion are incompatible because they reach different conclusions.

Yeah, I used to produce word salad for a living too. Mostly now I do it for free.

 

[westprog]

FFS, you have been told that science and religion are not a priori incompatible! As I told you, we could imagine a universe in which science and (some) religion reached the same conclusions, but that's not the universe we live in. In our universe, science and religion (as mostly understood) reach different conclusions.

Yes, and I've dealt with that point.

If science and religion did indeed reach different conclusions, then religious belief would obviously be an obstacle to being a scientist. Not in an abstract sense, but in a practical sense. If there's an incompatibility, then it would manifest itself in some way.

As it is, we do have examples of genuine incompatibility between certain religious beliefs and science. If someone is a creationist, then it will be a major hindrance for someone working in biology. Indeed, we can see how young-Earth creationist rationalisations have made it almost impossible to combine such beliefs with huge areas of modern science. The damage is manifest and obvious. That's because creationism isn't in conflict with the working assumptions of science - it's in conflict with the conclusions of science.

In the referenced article, the author makes it very clear that in no way does he make any imputation that scientists with a religious belief are worse scientists than the atheists. Isn't that a bit strange? We are asked to accept that there is an incompatibility, and at the same time, that this incompatibility has no manifestation - no measurable effects. It's like N-rays - if something doesn't make a difference, then how does it actually exist?

As was pointed out in numerous comments on the post, the working assumptions of the religious scientist are exactly the same as those of the atheist - in particular, methodological naturalism. If the catholic biologist didn't think that a virgin birth or resurrection were scientifically impossible, then he wouldn't thing they were miracles! The reason that the catholic biologist is a good scientist, and the creationist biologist is a bad scientist, is that the creationist has abandoned methodological naturalism.

When Carroll insists on an incompatibility, he means an incompatibility between religious belief and metaphysical naturalism. He's perfectly entitled to put forward the case for metaphysical naturalism - to say that it is the rational approach to the universe - but he can't claim that it's part of science. If a belief system were part of science, then failing to subscribe to it would mean being a bad scientist. The fact that this does not apply means that the central proposition is rebutted by the facts.

When the definition of science is muddied and blurred in the name of someone's personal beliefs, that's bad science, and should be deplored by everyone - scientists and lay people, believers and atheists.

 

[Minoosh]

That wasn't entirely fair, since I don't know if "Sean" gets paid for blogging. Why doesn't he use his last name?

If science and religion aren't a priori incompatible, then they're not a priori incompatible. Right? Then why is it a premise of the thread title?

 

[westprog]

Yes, but I don't see the relevance of pointing it out.

Scientific conclusions disagree with religious conclusions. That is the incompatiblity being pointed out.

Yes, they have been pointed out. I've pointed out that the claim is mistaken. The supposed scientific conclusions are not in conflict with religious beliefs.

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Science doesn't deal with "impossibilities". Science can say "for a man to be raised from the dead is in conflict with the laws of nature as we presently understand them." The Christian scientist* agrees with this. That's why a Christian scientist can be every bit as good a scientist as an Atheist scientist.

There are other senses in which science and religion are compatible. The article in the OP made explicit which kind of compatibility it was addressing.

I dealt with the broader issue of total incompatibility, and I've dealt in detail with the specific kind of incompatibility referred to. If there's some other kind of incompatibility, then please present it.

Note that my characterisation of possible incompatibility between religious belief and science is in accordance with the observed facts as stated by Carroll. His characterisation is supported by no evidence - as he has himself pointed out.

Here's a question for the people who claim that there is an incompatibility - if interviewing for a scientific professorship, would you give preference to a candidate according to their religious beliefs? (Subject to employment laws, of course).

*That's a Christian scientist, not a Christian Scientist. A Christian Scientist scientist would be a bad scientist, because her beliefs would be in conflict with scientific conclusions.

 

[westprog]

If you had bothered to read the post to which the OP linked (which you evidently didn't, because then you wouldn't have brought these strawmen to the table), you would have found that science and religion are incompatible because they reach different conclusions.

Yes, that has been repeatedly stated. It's not the case.

 

[citizenzen]

Scientific conclusions disagree with religious conclusions. That is the incompatiblity being pointed out.

I'm curious what "religious conclusions" people are assuming here. Religious conclusions that I can think of are ...

• God is the eternal, omnipotent, creator of the universe
• God created man in His image
• Jesus Christ is our Lord and savior​

What scientific conclusions disagree with these?

Perhaps people think that because in the past the church advocated against Heliocentrism, or that because today a subset of believers hold that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, that this makes religion incompatible with science. But I think that would be a mistaken viewpoint.

If we are to take mistaken historic viewpoints into account, then we would need to take the mistakes of science into account as well. If we treated these same bygone errors equally, we could argue that science is incompatible with science.

Likewise, if we examine the fringes of scientific inquiry today, there is no shortage of theories that are as crackpot as young Earth belief. If we treat fringe science equally as we treat religion, we could again argue that science is incompatible with science.

The real problem in my opinion is the notion that there is such a thing as "science" and "religion" and that each of these entities have reached "conclusions" that can be measured against each other.

But if someone can correct my mistaken notion and quantify what these conclusions are that are held by religion and science and then provide some explanation that details why science is right and religion wrong, I'd be happy to consider it.