Why science and religion are not compatible

[Paulhoff]

Just to make it plain - my assertion is not "God exists". Or even "God is a well-formed concept". My assertion is that science should not be and is not concerning itself with the God hypothesis.

It is a testable claim, it is not above review and also people make decisions base on it that affects others lives.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

What say you to that Paul, makes a lot more sense than Kimura and your evolutionary biologists that like to have it both ways. What do you think of intelligent design Paul?

Don't you mean NON-intelligent design.


Paul

 

[westprog]

All well and good and thanks for sharing part of your belief system with me

Interesting. Which part of the post do you think reflects my "belief system"?

but it does not answer the rather simple question I had asked you. Here it is again:

...... The claim I would like to see your evidence for is the highlighted part of your post: "...Certain definitions of God are possibly testable. Most aren't...."​

Most definitions of God involve a description of an omnipotent being that operates outside the laws of nature. A definition of God that involves a powerful being nevertheless restricted by the laws of nature might be, in principle, testable. (Though a practical test would be difficult to devise). An unambiguous proof or disproof of an omnipotent God that operates outside the laws of nature is not possible.

(I can foresee some discussion about whether "laws of nature" can be considered to be laws if they can be overridden, etc etc. I'm not going to get involved in that because I think it's largely a matter of semantics).

 

[westprog]

It is a testable claim, it is not above review and also people make decisions base on it that affects others lives.

Paul

It would be a very, very bad thing if science were to concern itself with the possible social consequences of scientific facts. Are scientists really to say "I will slacken the burden of disproof on this topic because I think it will make the world a better place"? That would end up unravelling science altogether.

I've given the reasons why a test for an omnipotent being is not possible. Simply stating that it is is not really going to prove anything apart from a personal belief. Elevating personal belief over science is what the creationists are doing. It's a bad idea.

If there's an in-principle test, then by all means put it forward. I don't ask that it be practically executable.

 

[Darat]

Interesting. Which part of the post do you think reflects my "belief system"?

Sorry I didn't realise you posted stuff that you don't believe in.

Most definitions ...snip...

Just repeating your assertion does not provide an answer to the question I asked you. Now if your claim was merely a piece of hyperbole just say so and I'll not bother asking you to support your claim again.

 

[westprog]

Hold up a minute there. Studying why we see things a particular way in fundamental physics, how our brains might be wired to see things in that way, would be incredibly important to the study of fundamental physics. It would belie our confidence that we could ever reach a true fundamental picture of the world.

I can see how it might limit our capacity for certainty. I don't see how it could increase it.

 

[Paulhoff]

Cytochrome c is a highly conserved protein across the spectrum of species, found in plants, animals, and many unicellular organisms. This, along with its small size (molecular weight about 12,000 daltons), makes it useful in studies of cladistics. Its primary structure consists of a chain of about 100 amino acids. Many higher order organisms possess a chain of 104 amino acids.[3]
The cytochrome c molecule has been studied for the glimpse it gives into evolutionary biology. Both chickens and turkeys have identical sequence homology (amino acid for amino acid), whereas ducks possess molecules differing by one amino acid. Similarly, both humans and chimpanzees have the identical molecule, while rhesus monkeys share all but one of the amino acids:[4] the 66th amino acid is isoleucine in the former and threonine in the latter.[3] Pigs, cows and sheep also share identical cytochrome c molecules.[3]

So what's the problem?

In a million words or less.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

It would be a very, very bad thing if science were to concern itself with the possible social consequences of scientific facts.

Here is the deal, science is a way to test, the best one we have. Science is not a thing.

Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

See this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216531

Thanks for that.


Patrick1000, if you are, as you claim in that other thread (post 54), a 'scientist of not insignificant abilities', how is it that you do not understand the simplest issues regarding protein composition, structure and function?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I can see how it might limit our capacity for certainty. I don't see how it could increase it.

I am sure that you know that science does not prove; it finds and argues evidence for or against hypotheses. Science contradicting some idea or hypothesis is not an absolute proof against that hypothesis and no one who knows anything about the issue claims that it is. A posteriori reasoning never provides proof; that is the realm of a priori reasoning.

You are conflating incompatibility, which science can and does provide in regards to god beliefs, with absolute proof against god beliefs.

As it turns out, science (and many other fields that use the same reasoning) does provide evidence against god beliefs; that is precisely where the two are not compatible. That it does not prove the non-existence of God does not mean that the two are compatible. It means that a posteriori reasoning does not deal in proof. Since there is no successful a priori argument for or against the existence of God, nothing, not philosophy, metaphysics, theology, can provide anything better.

When it comes to a god belief, if you wish to choose in favor of God, you simply have to make a choice. Nothing else is available.

 

[westprog]

Sorry I didn't realise you posted stuff that you don't believe in.

That's pretty flimsy. I think you should know the difference between an argument and a proclamation of belief. I've quite deliberately avoided bringing my own personal beliefs into this discussion, and confined myself to generally accepted definitions of religion or science. If you wish to dispute those definitions, then it would be a good idea to make such a claim explicit, rather than hinting that I'm just making them up to suit my hidden agenda. AFAIAA, I've confined myself to uncontroversial definitions of science and religion precisely in order to allow the discussion to proceed on common ground. If you disagree with my descriptions, then you should point out where they are lacking. I'm not attempting to force through descriptions and definitions that aren't uncontroversial.

Just repeating your assertion does not provide an answer to the question I asked you. Now if your claim was merely a piece of hyperbole just say so and I'll not bother asking you to support your claim again.

If you really think that all I did was repeat the assertion then you are not reading carefully. I will expand the argument (which has not yet been addressed, simply denied).

It is an assumption of science that experimental subjects always "play fair". That nature operates according to a set of fixed rules, and that matter and energy are always restricted by these rules. Hence it should always be possible to see what a neutrino does, because the neutrino doesn't care whether it's in an experiment or not. There is a proviso to this. It was discovered as part of twentieth century physics that it is impossible to make measurements without affecting the system being measured in some way. Modern physical experiments have to make allowances for this.

In the social sciences, it is not possible to assume that the subjects will behave in the same way when under observation. Place an experimenter in someone's house, and they will not behave as if unobserved.

In the case of an omnipotent being, we are considering something that has volition. Such a being might not wish to be observed. It might wish to be perceived in some particular way, which did not correspond to its true nature. By the very definition of omnipotence, it would be able to modify the results from any conceivable experiment. It would be able to directly modify the perceptions of the experimenter.

You may consider this as allowing for the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent being. Or, alternatively, you may consider it as a thought experiment illustrating the inherent limitations of the scientific method. Either way, science does not and cannot speak to the possible existence of an omnipotent being.

 

[westprog]

I am sure that you know that science does not prove; it finds and argues evidence for or against hypotheses. Science contradicting some idea or hypothesis is not an absolute proof against that hypothesis and no one who knows anything about the issue claims that it is. A posteriori reasoning never provides proof; that is the realm of a priori reasoning.

I'm not talking about absolute proof without the possibility of rebuttal. I'm talking about sufficient evidence being gathered such that a conclusion can be reached. That's why I'm setting such store by the benchmark of publication and peer review. It's quite possible for mistakes to be made and erroneous conclusions to be reached in scientific publications, but it's a good way of keeping track of what is a legitimate area for scientific investigation.

You are conflating incompatibility, which science can and does provide in regards to god beliefs, with absolute proof against god beliefs.

Well, the poorly defined phrase "uncompatible with" doesn't help. In the sense that science shouldn't be concerning itself with god beliefs, yes, it is incompatible. In the sense that a belief in a god is in some way something that a scientist should not have, no, it isn't incompatible.

As it turns out, science (and many other fields that use the same reasoning) does provide evidence against god beliefs; that is precisely where the two are not compatible. That it does not prove the non-existence of God does not mean that the two are compatible. It means that a posteriori reasoning does not deal in proof. Since there is no successful a priori argument for or against the existence of God, nothing, not philosophy, metaphysics, theology, can provide anything better.

When it comes to a god belief, if you wish to choose in favor of God, you simply have to make a choice. Nothing else is available.

It's always possible to make a choice either way, but the choice is just as available to a scientist as anyone else.

 

[westprog]

Here is the deal, science is a way to test, the best one we have. Science is not a thing.

Paul

Do you think that people engaged in the process of science should set their standard of proof according to the possible social effects of their conclusions?

 

[citizenzen]

No, it's science. Drawing conclusions about fundamental physics by studying what people think about fundamental physics is absurd. (That's assuming that the potential God study falls under physics - which seems appropriate).

One of us is really reluctant to understand the point (and I admit that it might be me).

You are assuming that gods exist and fall under physics. If that were true, it would certainly make my brain structures/activity experiments an absurd way to study people's historic proclivity towards religious belief and gods.

But I am not assuming gods existence. I am posing that they can be a product of delusion. Hypothetically, if isolating a structure or pattern of activity of the brain could turn religious belief on or off, it would not necessarily be a matter of physics. It might all be a matter of how we are wired. Where is the absurdity in that?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not talking about absolute proof without the possibility of rebuttal. I'm talking about sufficient evidence being gathered such that a conclusion can be reached. That is how science works.

How does understanding that our brains are set up to see the world as having intention, that we tend to project agency into things that cannot possibly have it, not constitute sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion that god beliefs are most likely human-centered and do not likely reflect the way the universe actually works?

Well, the poorly defined phrase "uncompatible with" doesn't help. In the sense that science shouldn't be concerning itself with god beliefs, yes, it is incompatible. In the sense that a belief in a god is in some way something that a scientist should not have, no, it isn't incompatible.



It's always possible to make a choice either way, but the choice is just as available to a scientist as anyone else.

I don't make arguments about who should and shouldn't believe certain things. The issue here is the compatibility and incompatibility of scientific-type reasoning with religion.

Issue 1 is that god-belief is not religion. Religion is that coterie of other stuff that accompanies god-belief. Science is incompatible with most if not all of the content of religion.

Issue 2 is that scientific-type reasoning cannot touch proof or disproof of God (nothing can, so it's a moot point); this is an entirely different issue since god-belief is not religion perse.

God-belief, when analyzed, is simply a choice. Science certainly can inform us about how we make choices, and specifically about how we make that type of choice. It cannot tell us if the choice reflects an outward reality (if you choose to believe one or two types of god -- one that hides and one that is reality itself), but science is not compatible with that choice necessarily being true. In fact, it is not compatible with the god-choice even likely being true for most types of god.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's pretty flimsy. I think you should know the difference between an argument and a proclamation of belief. I've quite deliberately avoided bringing my own personal beliefs into this discussion, and confined myself to generally accepted definitions of religion or science. If you wish to dispute those definitions, then it would be a good idea to make such a claim explicit, rather than hinting that I'm just making them up to suit my hidden agenda. AFAIAA, I've confined myself to uncontroversial definitions of science and religion precisely in order to allow the discussion to proceed on common ground. If you disagree with my descriptions, then you should point out where they are lacking. I'm not attempting to force through descriptions and definitions that aren't uncontroversial.



If you really think that all I did was repeat the assertion then you are not reading carefully. I will expand the argument (which has not yet been addressed, simply denied).

It is an assumption of science that experimental subjects always "play fair". That nature operates according to a set of fixed rules, and that matter and energy are always restricted by these rules. Hence it should always be possible to see what a neutrino does, because the neutrino doesn't care whether it's in an experiment or not. There is a proviso to this. It was discovered as part of twentieth century physics that it is impossible to make measurements without affecting the system being measured in some way. Modern physical experiments have to make allowances for this.

In the social sciences, it is not possible to assume that the subjects will behave in the same way when under observation. Place an experimenter in someone's house, and they will not behave as if unobserved.

In the case of an omnipotent being, we are considering something that has volition. Such a being might not wish to be observed. It might wish to be perceived in some particular way, which did not correspond to its true nature. By the very definition of omnipotence, it would be able to modify the results from any conceivable experiment. It would be able to directly modify the perceptions of the experimenter.

You may consider this as allowing for the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent being. Or, alternatively, you may consider it as a thought experiment illustrating the inherent limitations of the scientific method. Either way, science does not and cannot speak to the possible existence of an omnipotent being.

Westprog, I think Darat's concern was over your use of 'most' in saying 'most definitions of God'. In fact, there are only a very few -- two or three at most -- examples of a type of God that fits what you are talking about. There are many more definitions of god out there than this.

I will repeat an objection I cited earlier in the thread about the hidden God.....how is this being worthy of worship? Hiding does not seem to me to be a property of a perfect being.

 

[Patrick1000]

"That's just how it works" makes my point

I already answered you several pages ago.

There is no trick in your question. Evolution by means of natural selection works through genetic changes that result in protein changes which can be selected.

Not all protein changes result in a change in function of the protein. You have to know something about how proteins work before you can even think about this problem.

Cytochrome c oxidase is a carrier protein in the electron transport chain. It has a 'business end' (not actually the end) and the rest of the protein is there to help get the business end in place and to help anchor it in a membrane. If a non-polar amino acid within the anchor is substituted for another non-polar amino acid, then we will see a change in the protein make-up and no change in function (as long as the size of the side chain does not cause a problem).

Biochemistry, and evolution by means of natural selection, does not happen 'in theory' following some set of logic rules that you decided upon -- if there is a change in some protein then there must be a change in function that must be selected. That just isn't how it works.

Evolution by means of natural selection works off of genetic changes that do provide changes in function. That there are many genetic changes that do not produce changes in function is simply a part of biochemistry and molecular genetics. It has no impact on evolution. Those changes are very helpful, though, when we look at change over time.


ETA:

You have to keep in mind why the 'biological clock' idea was 'invented' and what purpose it serves. This goes a long way toward discussing this particular protein (or really group of protein subunits). The biological clock is a rough measure of how often mutations occur to help predict the potential accumulation of changes within proteins. It can work only because not all protein changes result in changes in function. And cytochrome c oxidase was used as the putative clock because it is so conserved in eukaryotes. It's conservation, in terms of its function (conservation of the business end) is why we see so much difference between this protein in eukaryotes and prokaryotes that we have studied in detail (the other issue you raised earlier).

"That's just how it works" makes my point. And I believe you missed mine.

If informational change occurs at clock-like rates then some mutations are occurring and being maintained independent of environmental conditions, independent of natural selection.

Sure it was/is a "trick question". It's only not a trick, if one knows about Motoo Kimura's famous response to my very own question. If one doesn't know that, know about Kimura's ad hoc response, then as a Darwinist, you are dead in the primordial oozy water.

I know how cytochrome c works by the way. Anchoring a protein in a membrane by the way constitutes a "function" Ichuemonwasp. Let's not play games here. The protein stem to stern is functional. It was made so, functional that way, whether by the hand of God, or nature. Intentionally, or unintentionally functional, stem to stern

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

"That's just how it works" makes my point. And I believe you missed mine.

If informational change occurs at clock-like rates then the mutations are occurring and being maintained independent of environmental conditions, independent of natural selection.

Sure it was/is a "trick question". It's only not a trick, if one knows about Motoo Kimura's famous response to my very own question.

No. You are conflating the theoretical issue of information change with functional change. That information may change when we look at a protein (switch out one amino acid for another) refers to the way that we define information. This has nothing to do with natural selection. That is an entirely humanocentric view.

There is functional information change for organisms and this refers to actual changes in function within a protein. It is that type of change that is influenced by environmental conditions in a new way from the native functional protein.

It's not a trick question for anyone who knows the first thing about protein composition, structure and function. I've never heard of Kimura before this, so he doesn't enter into it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I know how cytochrome c works by the way. Anchoring a protein in a membrane by the way constitutes a "function" Ichuemonwasp.

Not one that is changed by swapping out one lipophilic amino acid for another.

 

[citizenzen]

If informational change occurs at clock-like rates then some mutations are occurring and being maintained independent of environmental conditions, independent of natural selection.

Glacial periods have come and gone at clock-like rates.

Do you believe these occurred and were maintained independent of environmental conditions?