Why science and religion are not compatible

[citizenzen]

Did you read the part before Hmmm?

That was so long ago.

So many posts.

 

[Resume]

That was so long ago.

So many posts.

Post #741.

Only here to help.

 

[Humes fork]

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.

No, but science has reached conclusions that are incompatible with religious conclusions.

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.

It's a matter of degree I suppose. Certainly believing the creationism, or that the exodus took place, is contrary to 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?

That is the point.

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

You are setting up a strawman here. I don't think anyone claimed that. You can find scientists believing all sorts of weird things, like creationism, steady state universe etc. That doesn't make those beliefs scientifically grounded.

 

[Dinwar]

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.

So replace "all" with "any". Sorry, I mistyped.

Scientists don't know, and don't claim to know all the laws of physics. If they did, they could safely stop being scientists.

You need to read more by scientists. This is flagrantly false--they claim it all the time.

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.

Again, flagrantly false--EVERY time some new observation contradicts widely accepted theories it is ALWAYS greated with at least one person saying "No. You're wrong. That didn't happen."

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.

Not even close to true. The reason it's not is because 1) science is not a monolithic entity, and 2) scientists are required by the rules of the field to state what evidence they would require in order to accept some claim. So there's always a few hold-outs, but any researcher knows what's necessary to make their outlandish claim accepted by the majority of researchers.

Also, I love how you equivocate between "science" and "physics" here. It's a common theme, and one which non-physicist scientists tend to get annoyed by.

This should not be mistaken for a categorical statement of impossibility, which science does not do.

Seriously, did you stop learning about science in your freshmen gen-ed courses? Real scientists do this ALL THE TIME. Pick up any copy of Paleontologica Electronica to see examples of it. If you don't have the data to support a conclusion, some scientist WILL say "No, that didn't happen", be it a miracle or a tectonic upheaval. And if you don't think it happens, you don't know enough about how science operates to make such statements as you're making.

 

[citizenzen]

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

Quite reasonable.

 

[westprog]

You can find scientists believing all sorts of weird things, like creationism, steady state universe etc. That doesn't make those beliefs scientifically grounded.

Creationist scientists are bad scientists. They have vast swathes of physics, chemistry, biology and geology that they need to work around. I am not aware of a modern creationist scientist producing work of any note (though it's not entirely impossible, provided they simply ignored all the bad science that they subscribe to). That's an example of a real contradiction between science and religion, and because it's a real contradiction, it has real effects.

One of the bad side-effects of the claim that science is in conflict with religion would be to allow creationists to defend their right to be given equal treatment on the spurious grounds that they are no more in conflict with science than catholics. They could reasonably assert that since a vast number of people of religious faith are involved with science, either they all have to be sacked or none of them should.

I don't know if this is the intention. Is it implied that a catholic applying for a physics position should be treated in exactly the same way as a young-earth creationist applying for a geology job? (I.e. both rejected or both accepted).

 

[westprog]

You need to read more by scientists. This is flagrantly false--they claim it all the time.

There are scientists who claim to know all the laws of physics? If there were, that would be rather more disturbing than having a religious belief.

There's a slight difference between scientists who believe that it might be possible to someday know all the laws of physics, and those who think it might not. They tend not to be dogmatic even about this. The idea that they might claim to already know the laws of physics when they are demonstrably incomplete in a fundamental way is extremely odd.

 

[Dinwar]

There are scientists who claim to know all the laws of physics? If there were, that would be rather more disturbing than having a religious belief.

There certainly are scientists that claim to know enough to know that miracles such as most religions argue for cannot happen. I mean, let's face it, knowing about black holes isn't that critical to knowing that water cannot turn into wine.

You're playing the "Scientists don't know everything, so miracles are possible" game, plain and simple. And it doens't work. Not knowing how gravity and quantum mechanics work together doesn't impact whether or not a man can rise from the dead, or walk on water, or whether a statue can move. We DO know enough about physics to know that many, if not most, of the miracles religions and religious people claim have happened are impossible, and demanding that scientists not say so because we don't know things that have no bearing on the subject is disengenuous to say the least.

I am not aware of a modern creationist scientist producing work of any note

Again, you're showing your ignorance. I've been to several talks by Creationists that were actually quite good (well, information-wise; their style tends to be so boring it puts even scientists to sleep). One in particular was about stream sediment load. Other Creationists work in biochemistry, or physics, or any number of other fields. The only thing a Creationist cannot do is work in fields dealing with deep time, because they don't believe in it--after that, they can work anywhere they want.

This is significant, and your lack of knowledge on the topic revealing, because it's a common Creationist tactic to use experts in one field who are also Creationists to discuss fields outside of their expertise in support of Creationism. Anyone familiar with the debate should be familiar with the tactic.

 

[westprog]

Seriously, did you stop learning about science in your freshmen gen-ed courses? Real scientists do this ALL THE TIME. Pick up any copy of Paleontologica Electronica to see examples of it. If you don't have the data to support a conclusion, some scientist WILL say "No, that didn't happen", be it a miracle or a tectonic upheaval. And if you don't think it happens, you don't know enough about how science operates to make such statements as you're making.

I freely admit that I haven't read every scientific paper published this year. I did pick an entirely random paperpaper from Pal Elect which used the following dogmatic assertive language:

All taxa are present in the area today and support a woodland-pond interpretation of the site. ... The Desmognathus sp. specimens may help shed light on the evolutionary origins of the genus Desmognathus, which purportedly has its roots in this region during the Mio-Pliocene.

Here's the opening paragraph of Crick and Watson's paper on DNA:

We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.). This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological interest.

Here they are debunking the Pauling structure, which clearly didn't work:

In our opinion, this structure is unsatisfactory for two reasons: (1) We believe that the material which gives the X-ray diagrams is the salt, not the free acid. Without the acidic hydrogen atoms it is not clear what forces would hold the structure together, especially as the negatively charged phosphates near the axis will repel each other. (2) Some of the van der Waals distances appear to be too small.

That's one of the great revolutionary papers in biology (not physics this time). That's how I think scientists talk. Of course, I'm not an expert, and open to contradiction. However, I get the impression that when a scientist is thinking and saying "No, it didn't happen" he will write something like "The data gathered by Dr Smith does not appear to be sufficient to justify his conclusions".

 

[Dinwar]

That's how I think scientists talk.

Than you're delusional.

You picked PAPERS to figure out how scientists TALK. This goes well beyond just "Papers are written"--they require a whole different way of articulating thoughts. If you want to know how scientists speak, you need to talk to them. When you do, you'll find that they're quite willing to say other people are completely wrong, and that some idea is nonsense.

 

[westprog]

There certainly are scientists that claim to know enough

I can only go by what you actually say. I specifically stepped back to give you a chance to order your thoughts, so you wouldn't be in the position of changing them on the fly. Are you withdrawing the assertion that there are scientists who "claim it all the time", "it" being "all the laws of physics". (I've been back over the thread just to confirm that this is what was said).

 

[westprog]

Than you're delusional.

You picked PAPERS to figure out how scientists TALK. This goes well beyond just "Papers are written"--they require a whole different way of articulating thoughts. If you want to know how scientists speak, you need to talk to them. When you do, you'll find that they're quite willing to say other people are completely wrong, and that some idea is nonsense.

Well, I've made it clear that when I refer to scientists doing science, I regard the peer-reviewed papers as being science. What scientists say and do in the meantime is part of the process of producing the science, but that's the extent of it. What scientists happen to believe and assert isn't science just because they are scientists.

Read the interactions between the physicists debating quantum theory. (Yes, I know it's physics again. It's a valid example of science. I happen to use the areas with which I'm most familiar). What they said in conversation was often hyperbolic and contradictory. Much of it was wrong - inevitably, since they greatly disagreed on many points. However, when they wrote scientific papers, they reverted to quite circumspect, tentative language. That is because whatever the personalities of scientists, science is circumspect and tentative.

If some scientist happens to be confident that transubstantiation doesn't occur - so what? His Catholic colleague is equally confident that it does. Unless one of them does some actual science - repeatable experiments to validate a conclusion - then their opinions aren't science.

 

[westprog]

Again, you're showing your ignorance. I've been to several talks by Creationists that were actually quite good (well, information-wise; their style tends to be so boring it puts even scientists to sleep). One in particular was about stream sediment load. Other Creationists work in biochemistry, or physics, or any number of other fields. The only thing a Creationist cannot do is work in fields dealing with deep time, because they don't believe in it--after that, they can work anywhere they want.

This might be superficially so, but the evidence against creationism involves a wide range of fields (which I listed). Someone who believes the Earth is a few thousand years old has to have very confused ideas in all sorts of areas.

This is significant, and your lack of knowledge on the topic revealing, because it's a common Creationist tactic to use experts in one field who are also Creationists to discuss fields outside of their expertise in support of Creationism. Anyone familiar with the debate should be familiar with the tactic.

I explained how it's possible for a creationist to continue to work as a scientist - by simply putting the logical conclusions of his creationism on one side.

 

[westprog]

I happened across this a few minutes ago. It's an excellent summary of just what is actual science, and what isn't. He makes the important point that peer review isn't just pre-publication - that it sets the claims up for analysis forever after.

I don't care what scientists think, or believe, or say to each other, or write in newspaper articles, or tweet, or put in JREF posts. If it's not in a paper, it's not really science.

 

[Dinwar]

However, when they wrote scientific papers, they reverted to quite circumspect, tentative language. That is because whatever the personalities of scientists, science is circumspect and tentative.

Read some geology. While some of the language SOUNDS circumspect and tentative, once you understand the jargon you realize that it's actually quite viceous and nasty at times. The editors encourage this--some journals have a policy of encouraging debate (provided both sides continue to back up their information).

And journals are not the only place scientists "do science". Go to GSA sometime and attend any of the (myriad of) lectures on mass extinctions. Those get downright hostile. And good luck saying that a speach given in an accademic conference among fellow experts isn't "doing science"--it's got a tradition as long as, if not longer than, publishing in journals, and such talks are subject to peer review in that they are reviewed (in abstract form) prior to acceptance (never been part of the process myself, but I know people who have) and they are subject to immediate evaluation by one's peers in the form of the audience.

You've artificially limited what you accept as science to that which best supports your conclusions. Hardly an honest view of the subject.

If some scientist happens to be confident that transubstantiation doesn't occur - so what? His Catholic colleague is equally confident that it does. Unless one of them does some actual science - repeatable experiments to validate a conclusion - then their opinions aren't science.

Would you argue that the idea that the ammonites died out 65.4 million years ago isn't science merely because we can't raise ammonites and subject them to an impact from a 10-km diameter bolide? Or that the conclusion that thrust faulting occurs isn't valid because we can't actually shove an island arc over a continent? Or do you think that perhaps experimentation on related fields more ammenable to such experimentation, and the gathering of large amounts of data in support of one conclusion or the other, may be just as valid? I'll give you a hint: Unless you're going to argue that archaeology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, and a few other fields aren't science, you have to accept that not all science is conducted through repeatable experiments to validate a specific conclusion.

Again, you've artificially constrained science to best support your conclusion.

 

[Dinwar]

I don't care what scientists think, or believe, or say to each other, or write in newspaper articles, or tweet, or put in JREF posts. If it's not in a paper, it's not really science.

Are you sure you want to say that? I'll give you the chance to correct yourself if you'd like.

 

[westprog]

Read some geology. While some of the language SOUNDS circumspect and tentative, once you understand the jargon you realize that it's actually quite viceous and nasty at times. The editors encourage this--some journals have a policy of encouraging debate (provided both sides continue to back up their information).

And journals are not the only place scientists "do science". Go to GSA sometime and attend any of the (myriad of) lectures on mass extinctions. Those get downright hostile. And good luck saying that a speach given in an accademic conference among fellow experts isn't "doing science"--it's got a tradition as long as, if not longer than, publishing in journals, and such talks are subject to peer review in that they are reviewed (in abstract form) prior to acceptance (never been part of the process myself, but I know people who have) and they are subject to immediate evaluation by one's peers in the form of the audience.

There are lots of ways in which scientists reach their conclusions. They are all fine. However, the means by which they reach their conclusions are not the same thing as those conclusions.

Yes, it's a good thing to try out ideas before publication, in order that they can be tested. A lecture is a good way to do it. But it's not the same thing as publication. Of course, there's a spectrum there. When a paper is submitted in advance to a conference, that can be effectively equivalent to peer-reviewed publication.

You've artificially limited what you accept as science to that which best supports your conclusions. Hardly an honest view of the subject.

Would you argue that the idea that the ammonites died out 65.4 million years ago isn't science merely because we can't raise ammonites and subject them to an impact from a 10-km diameter bolide? Or that the conclusion that thrust faulting occurs isn't valid because we can't actually shove an island arc over a continent? Or do you think that perhaps experimentation on related fields more ammenable to such experimentation, and the gathering of large amounts of data in support of one conclusion or the other, may be just as valid? I'll give you a hint: Unless you're going to argue that archaeology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, and a few other fields aren't science, you have to accept that not all science is conducted through repeatable experiments to validate a specific conclusion.

Again, you've artificially constrained science to best support your conclusion.

An experiment in the non-manipulable areas of science as listed above may involve just measuring. That doesn't mean that it's not an experiment. The big bang theory was confirmed by measuring the background radiation. That's the same information-theory-experiment cycle as with the laboratory sciences. The criticism of string theory is that it fails to make any predictions which could be justified by testing.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What would you propose as a scientific test for a one-off miracle that happened centuries ago?

Where would be the proof that such an event happened?

 

[westprog]

Are you sure you want to say that? I'll give you the chance to correct yourself if you'd like.

I'm good with that. Of course, I'm distinguishing the process of science - which is whatever gets the job done - with the conclusions of science - which are expressed as published papers. (And conferences typically involve published papers, as noted). So if clarification were needed, voila.

 

[westprog]

Where would be the proof that such an event happened?

Absence of proof vs. proof of absence.