Why science and religion are not compatible

[Resume]

This thread has been going on for some time, and I have no idea what is meant by that claim. Depending on the meaning, it's either wrong, meaningless or trivial, but without further explanation I can't tell which.

The supernatural aspects of religions are incompatible with current scientific understanding.

Is that understandable?

 

[Minoosh]

Then they are heretics by their own religion's definition, and shouldn't call themselves Roman Catholics.

It's their call, though.

 

[tsig]

This thread has been going on for some time, and I have no idea what is meant by that claim. Depending on the meaning, it's either wrong, meaningless or trivial, but without further explanation I can't tell which.

Science = finding out how things work by examining the world

Religion = making up how things work by examining your own mind

 

[westprog]

but please don't try to tell me they are real.

I'm not trying to claim that the supernatural is real. I'm saying that a belief in the supernatural is not incompatible with science.

 

[citizenzen]

This thread has been going on for some time, and I have no idea what is meant by that claim. Depending on the meaning, it's either wrong, meaningless or trivial, but without further explanation I can't tell which.

Let's revisit the OP's definition ...

His example was that an airplane and a car while being very different vehicles could still get you to the same destination, therefore compatibility.

The problem with using that standard is that the destination of religion and science are not the same. Religion usually deals with obtaining enlightenment or salvation, personal conduct, mental and emotional discipline, prayer, meditation, etc. Science involves investigation of natural phenomena.

Trying to compare these two in order to establish "compatibility" requires a leap of logic that borders on the absurd.

The other aspect that borders on the absurd is the narrow focus of what constitutes a religion and the desire of people here to return time and time again to the most outlandish aspects of Christianity while ignoring other faiths.

~ 1 billion people practice Hinduism
~ .5 billion people practice Buddhism
~ .5 billion people practice Chinese folk religions (including Taoism and Confucianism)

These three religions alone come close to equalling the number of Christians in the world. Yet very little has been said about them or their "compatibility" to science. Ignoring such a significant amount of evidence just doesn't seem very scientifically sound to me.

 

[westprog]

I referenced that numerous times. If you're not going to bother to read what I write, I'm not going to bother with you.

I gave you a reference from The Catholic Encyclopedia which said that there was no change in the appearance of the bread. You seem to have some idea that this means that while the bread looks and tastes the same, that there is no visible alteration, that catholics somehow believe that some kind of change takes place that would be detectable by earthly means. You are simply wrong on this. I note that you are very vague about what kind of change this would be - just insisting that it is somehow scientifically detectable.

There is no physical change associated with transubstantiation. Most non-Catholics think that this is because nothing happens. Most catholics think it's because the change is, as in the passage I quoted, purely supernatural. In any case, there is nothing in conflict with science, because there is no conceivable scientific test that could be applied.

I agree, that if you are entirely wedded to this incorrect viewpoint - something that you seem determined to cling to - then there is little point in continuing to discuss.

 

[westprog]

Let's revisit the OP's definition ...

His example was that an airplane and a car while being very different vehicles could still get you to the same destination, therefore compatibility.

The problem with using that standard is that the destination of religion and science are not the same. Religion usually deals with obtaining enlightenment or salvation, personal conduct, mental and emotional discipline, prayer, meditation, etc. Science involves investigation of natural phenomena.

Trying to compare these two in order to establish "compatibility" requires a leap of logic that borders on the absurd.

The other aspect that borders on the absurd is the narrow focus of what constitutes a religion and the desire of people here to return time and time again to the most outlandish aspects of Christianity while ignoring other faiths.

~ 1 billion people practice Hinduism
~ .5 billion people practice Buddhism
~ .5 billion people practice Chinese folk religions (including Taoism and Confucianism)

These three religions alone come close to equalling the number of Christians in the world. Yet very little has been said about them or their "compatibility" to science. Ignoring such a significant amount of evidence just doesn't seem very scientifically sound to me.

Yes, it's like saying a car and a blender are incompatible.

 

[The Norseman]

I gave you a reference from The Catholic Encyclopedia which said that there was no change in the appearance of the bread. You seem to have some idea that this means that while the bread looks and tastes the same, that there is no visible alteration, that catholics somehow believe that some kind of change takes place that would be detectable by earthly means. You are simply wrong on this. I note that you are very vague about what kind of change this would be - just insisting that it is somehow scientifically detectable.

There is no physical change associated with transubstantiation. Most non-Catholics think that this is because nothing happens. Most catholics think it's because the change is, as in the passage I quoted, purely supernatural. In any case, there is nothing in conflict with science, because there is no conceivable scientific test that could be applied.

I agree, that if you are entirely wedded to this incorrect viewpoint - something that you seem determined to cling to - then there is little point in continuing to discuss.

You keep talking about the Roman Catholic Church. Are you Roman Catholic? If not, then I'm thinking you should refrain from commenting on them. Well, only if you wish to remain somewhat consistent in your stance as I understand it.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm not trying to claim that the supernatural is real. I'm saying that a belief in the supernatural is not incompatible with science.

Where it makes testable claims which are not supported by any evidence, or are contradicted by the evidence, they are. I'm unaware of how this can be difficult to understand.

You seem to have some idea that this means that while the bread looks and tastes the same, that there is no visible alteration, that catholics somehow believe that some kind of change takes place that would be detectable by earthly means.

No. I've alluded to a whole library of Catholic literature on the subject, which you're obviously unaware of or you obviously did not understand (meaning you didn't get my allusion). Thus, you're incapable of stating what I believe--you don't know it, because you don't even understand what I said. The Catholics had to provide some explanation for why the true body and blood of their god didn't actually look, taste, or in any way resemble flesh and blood, and went with dualism (which is at least internally consistent)--a dualism which by its nature puts science and theology at odds (which again is internally consistent--when you dig into Catholic theology, a raging hatred for existence becomes obvious in at least a number of the more popular theologians).

ETA:

Most catholics think it's because the change is, as in the passage I quoted, purely supernatural. In any case, there is nothing in conflict with science, because there is no conceivable scientific test that could be applied.

This is the conflict: Catholicism presents an epistemology that they assume is greater than science, and which violates every scientific tennant. Specifically, that epistemology is divine revelation. The conflict isn't necessarily with any individual idea (though those exist), but at the very root of scientific thought.

Of course, that's just my opinion. Obviously other scientists disagree. But you can't say that divine revelation and rational empiricism don't conflict, because they do (and every theologian has struggled to deal with that, from St. Paul to Pope Ratzinger).

 

[tsig]

Where it makes testable claims which are not supported by any evidence, or are contradicted by the evidence, they are. I'm unaware of how this can be difficult to understand.

No. I've alluded to a whole library of Catholic literature on the subject, which you're obviously unaware of or you obviously did not understand (meaning you didn't get my allusion). Thus, you're incapable of stating what I believe--you don't know it, because you don't even understand what I said. The Catholics had to provide some explanation for why the true body and blood of their god didn't actually look, taste, or in any way resemble flesh and blood, and went with dualism (which is at least internally consistent)--a dualism which by its nature puts science and theology at odds (which again is internally consistent--when you dig into Catholic theology, a raging hatred for existence becomes obvious in at least a number of the more popular theologians).

ETA: This is the conflict: Catholicism presents an epistemology that they assume is greater than science, and which violates every scientific tennant. Specifically, that epistemology is divine revelation. The conflict isn't necessarily with any individual idea (though those exist), but at the very root of scientific thought.

Of course, that's just my opinion. Obviously other scientists disagree. But you can't say that divine revelation and rational empiricism don't conflict, because they do (and every theologian has struggled to deal with that, from St. Paul to Pope Ratzinger).

When doctrine and reality clash, doctrine wins every time with the religious.

 

[Dinwar]

And that's where the incompatability lies. Science questions everything, and follows where the data lead--regardless of whether the conclusion is popular, or socially acceptable, or who the researcher disagrees with. It's slower than many would like, but it's true. Religion, on the other hand, starts with the answers and sets certain beliefs aside as unquestionable. God said it, therefore it must be true! Or, it was revealed by [insert holy person's name here], therefore it must be true! Even our resident Buddhist provides exmaples of this. And that clash of epistemologies is the fundamental and foundational incompatability between science and religion.

 

[citizenzen]

When doctrine and reality clash, doctrine wins every time with the religious.

I believe this has been proven false time and time again.

Where doctrine and reality clash, only a minority cling to doctrine while over time the majority embrace scientific reality. This has been demonstrated in the polling I referred to in an earlier post ...

A google search brought me back here to JREF where a thread already looked into this report using poll results to illustrate trends in religious beliefs. Here is one of the questions from Gallup, May 5-8, 2011 ...

"Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible? The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally. OR, The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

Actual — 30%
Inspired — 49%
Fables — 17%
Unsure — 3%​

So when you're talking about people who literally believe that Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden, ate the fruit from the forbidden tree and therefore originated sin, you're talking about the minority of Christians.

This poll from Gallup, December 17, 2010, showed nearly the same percentage of Americans believe humans evolved with God's guiding vs. were created in their human form 10,000 years ago ...

Which of the following statement comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so ...

1 — 38%
2 — 16%
3 — 40%​

So I have to ask, how long will we let the minority opinion represent the faith?

If you said, "When doctrine and reality clash, there is a reluctance to cast aside doctrine," then I would completely agree with you. People are naturally reluctant to change core beliefs, whatever they are. History, however, shows that over time this reluctance is won over by the weight of evidence.

If you expect people to immediately change their minds the instance new information becomes available, then you are being unrealistic. Change takes time. But in the end history shows that in the conflict between doctrine and reality, reality wins.

 

[westprog]

You keep talking about the Roman Catholic Church. Are you Roman Catholic? If not, then I'm thinking you should refrain from commenting on them. Well, only if you wish to remain somewhat consistent in your stance as I understand it.

I think that one doesn't have to profess a particular faith in order to look up the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Let me make it plain what my objections are to the comments of some atheists on this forum - it's not that they point out what people believe, and say that it's wrong. It's that they allege that people believe certain things, and insist that even when they say that they don't, they ought, logically, to do so, on some basis which makes sense to the atheists.

I've no problem with an atheist doing research on Catholicism and criticising on that basis. My problem is the insistence that people either believe, or somehow should believe, things that they don't.

 

[westprog]

And that clash of epistemologies is the fundamental and foundational incompatability between science and religion.

There is only a clash where science and religion come to different conclusions. The claim that science has a better epistemology, or the only epistemology, is not part of science. Science does not claim that people should only use science to make decisions. As has been pointed out many, many times, science on its own cannot be used to make decisions.

 

[The Norseman]

I think that one doesn't have to profess a particular faith in order to look up the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Let me make it plain what my objections are to the comments of some atheists on this forum - it's not that they point out what people believe, and say that it's wrong. It's that they allege that people believe certain things, and insist that even when they say that they don't, they ought, logically, to do so, on some basis which makes sense to the atheists.

I've no problem with an atheist doing research on Catholicism and criticising on that basis. My problem is the insistence that people either believe, or somehow should believe, things that they don't.

Thank you for the clarification.

The problem arises when using such an overbroad word ('religion') and then applying it to specifics as we've seen in this thread.

When 'both sides' argue either the broad categories *or* the specifics, then real communication can take place; it's when one argues the broad and the rebuttal is the specific that problems occur.

 

[citizenzen]

You keep talking about the Roman Catholic Church. Are you Roman Catholic? If not, then I'm thinking you should refrain from commenting on them. Well, only if you wish to remain somewhat consistent in your stance as I understand it.

Ironic ... how most of the criticism of religion seems to be coming from people who don't practice one.

Do you think that atheists should likewise "refrain from commenting" if they aren't a member of the church they are commenting upon?

Personally, I think that's a ridiculous restriction to place on anybody.

But if you want to be fair, then let's apply your rule to everybody.

 

[The Norseman]

Ironic ... how most of the criticism of religion seems to be coming from people who don't practice one.

Do you think that atheists should likewise "refrain from commenting" if they aren't a member of the church they are commenting upon?

Personally, I think that's a ridiculous restriction to place on anybody.

But if you want to be fair, then let's apply your rule to everybody.

Heh. It's not my rule. I was pointing out that westprog was coming across to me as hypocritical for the very reason you cited: namely, he was saying Dinwar shouldn't make comments on aspects of religion due to his being atheist.

 

[westprog]

Where it makes testable claims

The claim that it's a testable claim is in itself testable. The test is whether it's possible to come up with a valid scientific test. Of course, there is no such test - unlike, say, the claims of the Baptist faith healers. That's the difference between science and philosophy. No test, no science.

 

[citizenzen]

Heh. It's not my rule. I was pointing out that westprog was coming across to me as hypocritical for the very reason you cited: namely, he was saying Dinwar shouldn't make comments on aspects of religion due to his being atheist.

Everybody should be able to comment on anything they want, with the only caveat being that their ignorance might exposed.*

Sounds like we're not in disagreement on that.





*A fate that befalls everybody now and then. It's not the end of the world, and can actually be quite beneficial.

 

[The Norseman]

Everybody should be able to comment on anything they want, with the only caveat being that their ignorance might exposed.*

Sounds like we're not in disagreement on that.





*A fate that befalls everybody now and then. It's not the end of the world, and can actually be quite beneficial.

Oh, yes, I've been in agreement with a fair amount of what you've said in the latter part of this thread, as a matter of fact.

I was raised Lutheran, but always felt that buddhism and zen were more... accessible... more practical for the most part than other religions/philosophies that I studied. I never got that same sense of practicality and accessibility by reading the bible, for example.