Why science and religion are not compatible

[Minoosh]

Plus, I really like that metaphor of bringing straw men to the table. What do straw men eat?

 

[westprog]

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.

The conclusions of science are, in general, not inconsistent with the beliefs of religion. What people are claiming as conclusions of science are another matter.

 

[citizenzen]

What people are claiming as conclusions of science are another matter.

And look at the religious conclusions that I listed. Which of the following religions would even agree to that short list?

Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
Chinese traditional religion
Buddhism
primal-indigenous
African Traditional & Diasporic
Sikhism
Juche
Spiritism
Judaism
Baha'i
Jainism
Shinto
Cao Dai
Zoroastrianism
Tenrikyo
Neo-Paganism
Unitarian-Universalism
Rastafarianism
Scientology​

It's almost as silly as talking about the conclusions that all people make. Religion can't be treated an an monolithic entity. It simply doesn't exist.

 

[Humes fork]

Since some people appear to be unable to click on the link, I'll quote it for them.

The other favorite move to make, perhaps not as common, is to mess with the meaning of “science.” Usually it consists of taking some particular religious claim that goes beyond harmless non-supernatural wordmongering — “God exists,” for example, or “Jesus rose from the dead” — and pointing out that science can’t prove it isn’t true. Strictly construed, that’s perfectly correct, but it’s a dramatic misrepresentation of how science works. Science never proves anything. Science doesn’t prove that spacetime is curved, or that species evolved according to natural selection, or that the observable universe is billions of years old. That’s simply not how science works. For some reason, people are willing to pretend that the question “Does God exist?” should be subject to completely different standards of scientific reasoning than any other question.

...

Scientifically speaking, the existence of God is an untenable hypothesis. It’s not well-defined, it’s completely unnecessary to fit the data, and it adds unhelpful layers of complexity without any corresponding increase in understanding. Again, this is not an a priori result; the God hypothesis could have fit the data better than the alternatives, and indeed there are still respected religious people who argue that it does. Those people are just wrong, in precisely analogous ways to how people who cling to the Steady State theory are wrong. Fifty years ago, the Steady State model was a reasonable hypothesis; likewise, a couple of millennia ago God was a reasonable hypothesis. But our understanding (and our data) has improved greatly since then, and these are no longer viable models. The same kind of reasoning would hold for belief in miracles, various creation stories, and so on.

 

[westprog]

And look at the religious conclusions that I listed. Which of the following religions would even agree to that short list?

Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
Chinese traditional religion
Buddhism
primal-indigenous
African Traditional & Diasporic
Sikhism
Juche
Spiritism
Judaism
Baha'i
Jainism
Shinto
Cao Dai
Zoroastrianism
Tenrikyo
Neo-Paganism
Unitarian-Universalism
Rastafarianism
Scientology​

It's almost as silly as talking about the conclusions that all people make. Religion can't be treated an an monolithic entity. It simply doesn't exist.

It should be noted that there are plenty of examples of religions which are in conflict with science in various ways. Creationists, Nation of Islam, Scientologists, Christian Scientists. It's not hard to find real examples of the conflict between science and religion, and they throw into relief the incorrect examples highlighted in the OP.

 

[Minoosh]

Since some people appear to be unable to click on the link, I'll quote it for them.

Yo, people are allowed to disagree with him, and with you, wouldn't be much of a forum otherwise would it? His definition of "compatible" really is pretty narrow.

 

[westprog]

Since some people appear to be unable to click on the link, I'll quote it for them.

Those particular two paragraphs add up to "religion isn't science". Which I think we knew already. What they don't demonstrate is that "religion and science are incompatible". One could just as easily derive "religion and science are complementary". If science has nothing to say on a subject, then it's reasonable to say that science should steer clear of it. It doesn't mean that it is not for discussion at all, and few scientists would make such an extreme claim.

 

[westprog]

Yo, people are allowed to disagree with him, and with you, wouldn't be much of a forum otherwise would it? His definition of "compatible" really is pretty narrow.

It's not very well defined, that's for sure.

 

[Humes fork]

Those particular two paragraphs add up to "religion isn't science". Which I think we knew already. What they don't demonstrate is that "religion and science are incompatible". One could just as easily derive "religion and science are complementary". If science has nothing to say on a subject, then it's reasonable to say that science should steer clear of it. It doesn't mean that it is not for discussion at all, and few scientists would make such an extreme claim.

No, those two paragraphs add up to that religions make claims about the same sort of things science makes claims about, and their different claims contradict each other.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Nurture" is biology?

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

This may just be a semantic argument, or a chicken and egg argument, (did religion influence culture or culture influence religion).

Let's start with nurture vs biology. Nurture impacts and can even physically change biology. For example, it has been discovered that if one isolates a child from any exposure to language past a certain age, (~10 but I don't recall exactly) then the brain has changed to a point where it is impossible to acquire verbal language.

There are ways to look at the nurture variables to see just where the religion variable has an impact. Indoctrination certainly impacts a small percentage of the population. The Phelps clan of the Westboro Baptists and the polygamy cult of Warren Jeffs are clear examples. And I already mentioned the specific religious beliefs like pork and homosexuality being sins are different examples.

But for the vast majority of the population the true nurture influence going on here is coming from the social groups people are a part of. Social groups can claim it is religion that guides them. But when we look closer, it turns out the religious tenets are simply a product of the socio-cultural morality. One need merely look at the vast differences in how Islam is practiced in countries around the world. Just because a society cloaks their cultural mores in religious mandates does not change the fact the mandate is more cultural and not 'god driven'.

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.

This part of your post was answered.

God of the Gaps can be derogatory but doesn't have to be. One argument for the existence of gods has been to say, "science can't explain it, therefore, god did it". Then as scientific investigation closes one gap after another the claim remains with any remaining gaps. It's is an illogical argument that give the illusion it is somehow evidence gods must exist. It is not, however, evidence for gods existing at all.

 

[Patrick1000]

I reject the proposed mechanism, a series of "unintentional, undirected" mutations.

No, not at all. You are saying that it did not operate in ("does not address", your very words) the process which separates the wise beautiful you from a mere one celled bug. Please be consistent. You mean God created us, and natural selection, which is capable only of inflicting sickle cell on black people and similar small scale things had nothing to do with the formation of species So it is not a question of presentation by biologists. However they presented it, you would reject it.

By the way, not only is natural selection incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, Islam. They are also mutually incompatible, which is why their adherents have spent most of the last couple of millennia murdering and torturing one another.

I reject the proposed mechanism which mainstream evolutionary biologists say accounts for the changes, a series of "unintentional, undirected" mutations. There is no evidence for this.

There is evidence for common ancestry. There is evidence for mutation resulting in LIMITED changes over time, sickle cell genes, penicillin resistance and so forth, but no evidence for a series of random mutations having the requisite creative power to turn a dinosaur into a bird.

Just because evolutionary biologists haven't come up with a better naturalistic explanation for the raw material, the mechanism for informational change, that would be required were "evolution" true, doesn't mean we have to buy into the mechanism for biologic informational change as currently presented in the main, a series of unintentionally connected mutations. So what if it is all they've got? There is no evidence for it, and so we should not buy in.

According to Dawkins, living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose". What Dawkins means in part by this statement is that living systems very much WERE NOT DESIGNED FOR A PURPOSE.

Because evolutionary biologists like Dawkins don't have a good explanation as to how a naturalistic mechanism might account for the origin of biologic information and its changing over time, does not mean an explanation does not exist. They may not have hit on it yet, or as I believe, it simply may be something beyond the ken of human appreciation, or finally, the intelligent design folks may prove everyone wrong.

All of this aside, mechanism aside, most Americans say they believe in God, an intelligent creator. And by God they mean, the believers mean, they were created with an intention, a purpose, if for no other reason than to appreciate they are in relation with that very maker, that designer. As such, religion and science, science as in the conventional presentation of neo-Darwinian doctrine, shall forever remain incompatible, irreconcilable, not "logically consistent" with one another in terms of representing very different overall world views.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

This conclusion requires cognitive dissonance. It requires you ignore certain evidence based conclusions like the evidence based conclusion people invented god myths and there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis god beliefs ever involved any real gods.

...
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)....

Yes, and it has come up. We had a thread on such a case, whether it was religious discrimination or legitimate scientific problems with the professor's beliefs. I don't recall the guy's name. Maybe someone else knows who I am talking about. The guy promoted ID IIRC.

 

[westprog]

No, those two paragraphs add up to that religions make claims about the same sort of things science makes claims about, and their different claims contradict each other.

He specifically states that science doesn't make such claims. He just doesn't think that religion should.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

Surely you gest?

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.

After science picks off one god belief after another one is left with moving the goal post off the playing field and declaring a Deist God could exist and science could not challenge that claim (some people try to say Deism makes no claim but saying a god exists is a claim).

The trouble is, Deism seems to have been specifically described to get around the fact there is no evidence supporting any other god belief. It makes god irrelevant. And if a god created the Universe then doesn't interact with it any more, how would humans be aware of such a god?

 

[westprog]

This conclusion requires cognitive dissonance. It requires you ignore certain evidence based conclusions like the evidence based conclusion people invented god myths and there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis god beliefs ever involved any real gods.



Yes, and it has come up. We had a thread on such a case, whether it was religious discrimination or legitimate scientific problems with the professor's beliefs. I don't recall the guy's name. Maybe someone else knows who I am talking about. The guy promoted ID IIRC.

Yes, and I've very clearly distinguished between creationists, and people who have a religious belief in general. It's perfectly reasonable to deny someone employment as a scientist who disagrees with actual scientific conclusions. The question is - should someone who, say, believes in the resurrection have this as a negative?

 

[westprog]

Surely you gest?

That's not an answer. The correct answer is "none". Feel free to let it stick in your throat for a while, though.

 

[citizenzen]

Since some people appear to be unable to click on the link, I'll quote it for them.

While other people don't appear to understand that this is a discussion and not merely a reading assignment.

Surely you gest?

Surely I don't.

However, If you can point me to the scientific studies that disprove these notions then congratulations, you have proven incompatibility.

After science picks off one god belief after another ...

I don't believe it is science that picks off god belief, unless again, you can show me the literature that shows science addressing and refuting these beliefs.

 

[Patrick1000]

We fear fear death because life is so very very beautiful.

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?

We fear fear death because life is so very very beautiful.

 

[FireGarden]

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.

But then accepts that the event could have happened due to a miracle. What was that about methodological naturalism (always search for natural causes in your work)? Miracles don't seem to fit into that.

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.

Not incompatibility -- compatibility. There was even resort to a dictionary for the 'able to live together' type of definition which is exemplified by religious people who are scientists.

 

[westprog]

While other people don't appear to understand that this is a discussion and not merely a reading assignment.





Surely I don't.

However, If you can point me to the scientific studies that disprove these notions then congratulations, you have proven incompatibility.

SG is wedded to the notion that if you can show the social, anthropological and mental processes that lead to a belief, then that is equivalent to disproving the belief. As this would enable any belief to be disproved, including beliefs that are precise opposites, there's a clear logical hole in the argument.

I don't believe it is science that picks off god belief, unless again, you can show me the literature that shows science addressing and refuting these beliefs.

WRT the unicorn question. It's certainly implausible that someone would produce a scientific paper on the non-existence of unicorns. It is, however, quite plausible that someone would have something on the likelihood of the existence of undiscovered large mammals. Such a paper would be entirely scientific, and indeed, may well exist. Scientific papers on metaphysical questions don't exist, for good reason. Science deals with the testable. Something untestable in principle is not science.

It's been stated that since science doesn't assume the existence of God, that this equates to a scientific proof that God does not exist. This is so obviously a flawed argument that it could be used in chapter one of Errors In Logic.