Why science and religion are not compatible

[Resume]

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

Is that understandable?

Here ... I'll try to frame this argument in a more rational way. And I urge everybody to try to rewrite the sentence above in a way that makes more sense ...

"Some aspects of religion are incompatible with our current understanding of science."

Hmmm . . .

 

[citizenzen]

Hmmm . . .

Word it better if you don't like the way I did.

 

[westprog]

So when the scientific conclusion based on the evidence is that gods are fiction...... I think that clears it up nicely.

I have to repeat again - just calling something "scientific" doesn't make it so. Not Christian Science. Not Scientific Socialism. Not something that an eminent scientist happens to believe.

 

[westprog]

It doesn't matter what it does or doesn't claimed to be. Religion is what we would call any other system of ancient beliefs mythology. And mythology, despite what you might say of it, was an early attempt by man to understand the world.

It was early science, though I'm using a very loose definition of science here.

There was a time when religion, science and philosophy were entirely intermingled. That time is not now, though.

 

[westprog]

I'd first try to establish such a thing actually occurred.

Or didn't occur. Yes, that would be phase one. Since it is impossible to establish this with certainty, the experiment collapses right away.

The scientist will then proceed on the assumption that the miracle didn't happen. He will not, if he is wise, make the claim - as a scientist - that it is impossible that the miracle happened, that he knows the miracle didn't happen, or that miracles can't happen. He can of course make such statements when not speaking as a scientist.

How do we know when a scientist is speaking as a scientist? When they publish. And not just publish anywhere. Dawkins' books on religion are not scientific works. His papers on genetic theory are.

 

[westprog]

That's whittled it down a bit, but what does "contradicting science" actually mean? Science isn't a set of doctrines or beliefs that can be contradicted and there are plenty of grey areas. As you point out, when scientists contradict other scientists we don't claim science is incompatible with itself, we sometimes even call it "peer-review". Disagreeing with scientists' findings isn't necessarily an incompatibility with science.

And no, this doesn't somehow make religion compatible with science (other than possibly semantically), I'm trying to clarify what point is being made here. If we phrase the idea in a less controversial and broad sweeping way as something like "some religions have doctrines which are in disagreement with the consensus of mainstream science" what point is being made beyond that?

Saying science and religion are not compatible makes it sound like religious people might be incapable of being scientists which is demonstratively untrue.

I've been trying to tease this out. The statement "religion and science contradict each other" doesn't mean very much if reduced to "religion makes statements which science cannot confirm" or "science and religion operate on a different basis".

The claim "some religions make statements which conflict with science" is obviously true, and nobody is disputing it, AFAIAA. The far stronger statement in the OP is that while there is no necessary conflict between science and religion, in practice it always arises.

 

[Dinwar]

How do we know when a scientist is speaking as a scientist? When they publish. And not just publish anywhere.

So all those scientists working as consultants, or speaking as expert witnesses, or the like aren't speaking as scientists? Good to know--it'll make my job a lot easier.

He will not, if he is wise, make the claim - as a scientist - that it is impossible that the miracle happened, that he knows the miracle didn't happen, or that miracles can't happen.

Sure he can--provided he can back it up with data. If someone says something occured which violates all laws of physics, a scientist can safely say "No, that didn't happen". There is no reason to demand that scientists be agnostic to the validity of claims that are not directly testable--many, many claims are INdirectly testable, and until someone provides evidence that something happened we can assume it didn't, if that something violates how we understand the universe to work. In other words, religion doesn't get a free pass just because they're religious--scientists treat ALL claims as false until proven otherwise when they violate how they know the world to work. Every scientist runs into this, and all the quote above amounts to is telling scientists that they have to treat religion more gently than they treat their own pet theories.

The claim "some religions make statements which conflict with science" is obviously true, and nobody is disputing it, AFAIAA. The far stronger statement in the OP is that while there is no necessary conflict between science and religion, in practice it always arises.

You continue to look at the effects only. The more fundamental issue is the cause: the differences in epistemology between science and religion. Science relies on experimentation and observation, while religion relies on revelation of one flavor or another (there's a reason Aristotle isn't held up as a great physicist). The incompatability isn't in what the two fields conclude, but in how they reach those conclusions.

And before you say "But scientists can be religious!" allow me to remind you that compartmentalization is entirely possible, and may in fact be universal in humans. It's not hard to hold both epistemologies at the same time--until the answers they provide conflict, and then you have to choose.

 

[westprog]

If someone says something occured which violates all laws of physics, a scientist can safely say "No, that didn't happen".

I'll give you a chance to correct this if you wish. If not, I'll get back to it.

 

[westprog]

So all those scientists working as consultants, or speaking as expert witnesses, or the like aren't speaking as scientists? Good to know--it'll make my job a lot easier.

If a scientist makes a statement not subject to peer review, it's at a different level of trustworthiness.

For an insight into the world of expert witnesses, I recommend The Innocent Man by John Grisham. It's very good on how the expert witness system can work - basically, if the assertions of a scientist are not subject to review.

 

[westprog]

You continue to look at the effects only. The more fundamental issue is the cause: the differences in epistemology between science and religion. Science relies on experimentation and observation, while religion relies on revelation of one flavor or another (there's a reason Aristotle isn't held up as a great physicist). The incompatability isn't in what the two fields conclude, but in how they reach those conclusions.

And before you say "But scientists can be religious!" allow me to remind you that compartmentalization is entirely possible, and may in fact be universal in humans. It's not hard to hold both epistemologies at the same time--until the answers they provide conflict, and then you have to choose.

Science has a whole range of issues that it cannot address. It is impossible for science alone to be used by scientists. The very decision to be a scientist is an unscientific decision. There is scientifically no reason why someone should or should not study science.

Having a means to make decisions and apply values is not in competition with science - it's an essential complement to science.

 

[Dinwar]

I'll give you a chance to correct this if you wish. If not, I'll get back to it.

Gee, thanks. You're SO generous.

I'll keep it as it is. After all, a scientist can always later say "Yeah, I was wrong". Einstein wrote more retractions than most scientists write papers, as I recall.

For an insight into the world of expert witnesses, I recommend The Innocent Man by John Grisham. It's very good on how the expert witness system can work - basically, if the assertions of a scientist are not subject to review.

You're still leaving out the whole consulting field, and pretty much everything outside of the courtroom. Besides, you're referencing a fiction author--does that mean you'd accept me referencing Crichten in a global warming discussion?

 

[Dinwar]

Science has a whole range of issues that it cannot address.

No kidding. I personally have never argued otherwise, though I'll argue the limits. That doesn't mean that the forms of epistemology utilized by other areas are compatable with science, however, any more than it means that they are incompatable.

However, revelation in particular runs contrary to science, and has a nasty history in that regard.

 

[westprog]

No kidding. I personally have never argued otherwise, though I'll argue the limits. That doesn't mean that the forms of epistemology utilized by other areas are compatable with science, however, any more than it means that they are incompatable.

Then do you accept that the various methods used by human beings to make decisions are complementary to science?

 

[Pythonic]

be [/I]a scientist is an unscientific decision. There is scientifically no reason why someone should or should not study science.

So, the utilitarian argument that one applies the scientific method to further improve the human condition is not a scientific reason? I disagree. The idea of alleviating human suffering in the interest of furthering the human species is reducible to its constitute components and not some wild random thing.

 

[westprog]

Gee, thanks. You're SO generous.

I'll keep it as it is. After all, a scientist can always later say "Yeah, I was wrong". Einstein wrote more retractions than most scientists write papers, as I recall.

Suit yourself. I wasn't being generous - I just wanted to make sure that it was in fact your claim before going through it in detail.

You're still leaving out the whole consulting field, and pretty much everything outside of the courtroom. Besides, you're referencing a fiction author--does that mean you'd accept me referencing Crichten in a global warming discussion?

He is indeed a fiction author, but if you look at the link, you'll see that this was a factual book, and is well documented. He covers one particular case, but discusses the problems with expert witnesses in general.

 

[westprog]

So, the utilitarian argument that one applies the scientific method to further improve the human condition is not a scientific reason? I disagree. The idea of alleviating human suffering in the interest of furthering the human species is reducible to its constitute components and not some wild random thing.

That's a utilitarian argument, not a scientific one. The idea that the human condition should be improved is not scientific.

I'm not sure whether scientists who study cosmology, say, do so in the belief that they are improving the human condition, but that's another matter.

 

[Resume]

Word it better if you don't like the way I did.

Be repetitious on my part.

 

[westprog]

If someone says something occured which violates all laws of physics, a scientist can safely say "No, that didn't happen".

Going through point by point-

• It's difficult to conceive of an event which would violate all laws of physics. One would expect some of the laws to remain inviolate.
• Scientists don't know, and don't claim to know all the laws of physics. If they did, they could safely stop being scientists.
• If an event, such as, say, neutrinos exceeding the speed of light, were to be observed, scientists would rarely insist that such a thing absolutely didn't happen. They would preserve a skeptical open-mindedness.
• If scientists did, in practice, discard observations that didn't fit current physical theory, then that would have prevented most of the progress in twentieth century physics.

There is no reason to demand that scientists be agnostic to the validity of claims that are not directly testable--many, many claims are INdirectly testable, and until someone provides evidence that something happened we can assume it didn't,

Of course scientists should assume that miracles don't happen. They should, as a matter of course, ignore non-reproducible results. This should not be mistaken for a categorical statement of impossibility, which science does not do. A scientist will issue the proviso that something is impossible according to his current understanding, always knowing that his current understanding is incomplete and quite possibly wrong.

 

[citizenzen]

Be repetitious on my part.

I guess I'll just have to settle for, "Hmmmm...."

 

[Resume]

I guess I'll just have to settle for, "Hmmmm...."

Did you read the part before Hmmm?