Why science and religion are not compatible

[Dinwar]

Either way, my point stands--just because some laws of physics aren't known, doesn't mean that we don't know anything, nor does it mean that miracles occur.

And the real issue isn't whether Jesus rose from the dead or not--it's whether he actually existed or not to begin with.

 

[The Norseman]

I'm sure someone has brought this up, but in case they haven't:

The most logical explanation for Jesus rising from the dead could be that Jesus wasn't really dead.

You'd think it would be pretty easy to tell, but in fact it's not: People do get buried alive. Used to, anyway.

I would hazard a guess as to why it was gone into such bloody detail about the spikes through the wrists/hands and feet, the beating beforehand, the spear in the chest after: to demonstrate beyond doubt that Yeshua was in fact dead before being placed in the tomb and so therefore his being resurrected can be nothing but a miracle.

 

[Dinwar]

Well, Yeshua was supposedly on the cross for three hours. The Romans were pretty good with records--it took days for most to die on a cross. The spear through the side would hurt like crazy, but could be survivable. A few coins change hands, a Roman soldier makes a deal, and you've got the makings of a miracle.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm sure someone has brought this up, but in case they haven't:

The most logical explanation for Jesus rising from the dead could be that Jesus wasn't really dead.

You'd think it would be pretty easy to tell, but in fact it's not: People do get buried alive. Used to, anyway.

I disagree. I think it much more likely that someone or some few experienced his appearance most likely in dream. One person dreams something, not such a big deal. But if three or more do, I think it is likely that it would be interpreted as reality. Others would want to jump on the ship.

 

[Humes fork]

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.

But a creationist could without problem be a historian focused on medieval Europe, as creationism wouldn't infringe there. Similarly, a person believing in the steady state theory could be a fine biologist. That doesn't mean any of these beliefs are scientifically supported.

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.

Who said anything about sacking people? Are you building strawmen again? The creationist medieval historian wouldn't be sacked.

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).

If the Catholic lets faith get in the way for science, then yes, there will be problems. There is a reason that almost all cosmologists are atheists.

 

[Humes fork]

I go back to the question of which religion are you talking about? I think that we naturally fall back on the one we're exposed to the most, Christianity, which is rife with mythology and the supernatural and just assume that is the model that all others follow.

Here's an excerpt from an article on Religious naturalism

Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism. The focus is on the religious attributes of the universe/Nature, the understanding of it and our response to it (interpretive, spiritual and moral). These provide for the development of an eco-morality. Interest is growing in this modern movement, and, although it has an ancient heritage in many philosophical cultures, it is not currently well defined. Theistic or non-theistic religious naturalism is a basic theological perspective of liberal religion and religious humanism according to some sources.

Religious naturalism is concerned about the meaning of life, but it is equally interested in living daily life in a rational, happy way. An alternative, more human-centric approach, is to look at it as answering the question: "What is the meaning of one's life and does it have a purpose?". It is an approach to understanding the natural world in a religious way and does not offer a detailed system of beliefs or rituals. Religious naturalism also attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics. As such, it is an objectivity with religious emotional feelings and the aesthetic insights supplied by art, music and literature. It is a promising form of contemporary religious ethics and pluralism responding to the challenges of late modern religious transformations and ecological peril. In so doing, it is emerging as an increasingly plausible and potentially rewarding form of religious moral life consistent with the insights of the natural sciences.
​

There. Are we happy now?

But that is not what most people (certainly religious people) think of when they think about religion. If you label morality and/or awe of the universe as "religion", you will cause much unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding.

 

[Dinwar]

you will cause much unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding.

You're making a major assumption here--you're assuming that confusion and misunderstanding aren't the goal (not necessarily talking about the poster you're replying to, but the ones that made up the religion)

 

[citizenzen]

But that is not what most people (certainly religious people) think of when they think about religion.

As science finds out more about our natural world and people become more educated about it, myth should become less a part of religion. I believe there's ample evidence that over time this has been the trend. But I don't see religion simply disappearing. It will still have a role in many people's lives for the foreseeable future. I'm suggesting that this is a possible direction for religion to take.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I disagree. I think it much more likely that someone or some few experienced his appearance most likely in dream. One person dreams something, not such a big deal. But if three or more do, I think it is likely that it would be interpreted as reality. Others would want to jump on the ship.

Or, the third option, no historical Jesus ever existed and the story is a myth altogether.

 

[FattyCatty]

I've read parts (sorry, not all yet) of this thread and I'm confused. So many posters seem to contradict what I find on science sites and other places, especially when they claim science disproves religion or precludes it or other such exclusions. Or when they say (maybe not in this thread, but on this forum) that true scientists can't believe in God(s).

Can somebody explain to me why scientific groups and others say, not that science and religion are not compatible, but that they deal with different things? That science does not disprove religion? That many scientists are religious in various ways? That the division most posters in this thread embrace is that of a vocal minority?

See this, from the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, 2008:

Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations.
<snip>
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

So not only do they say that science and religion are separate, that science cannot investigate "supernatural forces or entities," but also that there is no need to create controversy by pitting science and religion against each other. Very different from most posters here.


What about this, from Understanding Science*:

Only testable ideas are within the purview of science. For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true.
<snip>
If an explanation is equally compatible with all possible observations, then it is not testable and hence, not within the reach of science. This is frequently the case with ideas about supernatural entities. For example, consider the idea that an all-powerful supernatural being controls our actions. Is there anything we could do to test that idea? No. Because this supernatural being is all-powerful, anything we observe could be chalked up to the whim of that being. Or not. The point is that we can't use the tools of science to gather any information about whether or not this being exists — so such an idea is outside the realm of science.

So, they say that supernatural beings (e.g., God) are "outside the realm of science."

And this, again from Understanding Science:*

Misunderstandings of the limits of science

Science contradicts the existence of God. Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God. To learn more, visit our side trip Science and religion: Reconcilable differences.

So science neither supports nor contradicts the existence of supernatural entities. Also, science and religion are not at war, despite some "vocal individuals stridently declaring their beliefs." Hmm, they must have used a time machine to read this thread.


And, because it speaks to my level, one more from Understanding Science:*

Science and religion: Reconcilable differences

With the loud protests of a small number of religious groups over teaching scientific concepts like evolution and the Big Bang in public schools, and the equally loud proclamations of a few scientists with personal, anti-religious philosophies, it can sometimes seem as though science and religion are at war.
<snip>
In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Many simply acknowledge that the two institutions deal with different realms of human experience. Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary.
<snip>
Furthermore, contrary to stereotype, one certainly doesn't have to be an atheist in order to become a scientist. A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2
<snip>
Thousands of scientists busily carry out their research while maintaining personal spiritual beliefs, and an even larger number of everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn't require giving up religious faith.

Says that science and religion are not at war, that, in fact, many scientists are religious and many religious people view the natural world "through an evidence-based, scientific lens...."

*The Understanding Science site was produced by the UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with a diverse group of scientists and teachers, and was funded by the National Science Foundation.


There is a very interesting discussion of science and religion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It was a little over my head on the logic part, but this particular bit made me grin:

<snip>
Advocates of naturalism thus conceived would be (for example) Bertrand Russell (1957), Daniel Dennett (1995), Richard Dawkins (1986), David Armstrong (1978), and the many others that are sometimes said to endorse “The Scientific World-View.”

Naturalism is presumably not a religion. In one very important respect, however, it resembles religion: it can be said to perform the cognitive function of a religion....Like a typical religion, naturalism gives a set of answers to these and similar questions. We may therefore say that naturalism performs the cognitive function of a religion, and hence can sensibly be thought of as a quasi-religion.
<snip>
The argument concludes that the conjunction of naturalism with the theory of evolution cannot rationally be accepted—at any rate by someone who is apprised of this argument and sees the connection between N&E and R.
<snip>
If the argument is correct, however, and N&E can't rationally be accepted, then there is a conflict between naturalism and evolution; one can't rationally accept them both. Hence there is conflict between naturalism and one of the chief pillars of contemporary science. Insofar as naturalism is a quasi-religion by virtue of performing the cognitive function of a religion, there is a sort of religion/science conflict—not between theistic religion and science, but between naturalism and science.

From Exchanges in science and religion, a lecture at The Royal Society, London, by Revd Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS:

'Science and religion are both concerned with the search for truth, attainable through well-motivated beliefs. The aspects of reality they investigate are different - in the case of science, the impersonal, physical world; in the case of religion, the transpersonal reality of God. Neither can tell the other what to think in its own domain, but their insights have to bear some consonant relation to each other. Science tells theology about the structure and history of the universe and, in particular, emphasises its evolutionary nature. Religious insight can set the laws of nature in a more profound context of understanding, so that their deep order, rational beauty and anthropic fine-tuning become intelligible features and need not to be treated as brute facts. As a consequence, there is a vigorous and enlightening intellectual exchange between the two.'

The reverse of incompatibility between science and religion; rather, they can compliment each other.


Although you must pay for the full article, here is the abstract from an article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 50, Issue 3, pages 552–569, September 2011,"Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science," by Elaine Howard Ecklund¹, Jerry Z. Park², Katherine L. Sorrell³:

Analysis of interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at 21 elite U.S. research universities suggests that only a minority of scientists see religion and science as always in conflict. Scientists selectively employ different cultural strategies with regards to the religion-science relationship: redefining categories (the use of institutional resources from religion and from science), integration models (scientists strategically employ the views of major scientific actors to legitimate a more symbiotic relationship between science and religion), and intentional talk (scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion). Such results challenge narrow conceptions of secularization theory and the sociology of science literature by describing ways science intersects with other knowledge categories. Most broadly the ways that institutions and ideologies shape one another through the agency of individual actors within those institutions is explored.

So most scientists they surveyed don't see science and religion as always in conflict.


I couldn't afford to buy the book, but the parts I could preview looked interesting. From Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund, Oxford University Press, 2010:

<snip>
Aggressive attacks on religion such as Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion do not accurately represent the complex ways in which scientists -- even those who are not religious -- actually engage religion and spirituality. The general public misunderstands what scientists really think about the relationship between science and religion; many accept the extreme hostility of a few as representative of all scientists' views about faith.
<snip>
These pages present the diverse views of elite scientists from seven natural and social science disciplines at the nation's top research universities. To tell their stories, I draw on data collected during four years of intensive research I conducted between 2005 and 2008 as part of the Religion among Academic Scientists (RAAS) study, including a survey of nearly 1,700 scientists, one-on-one conversations with 275 of them, and notes from lectures and public events where top scientists talked about matters of faith.
<snip>
After four years of research, at least one thing became clear: Much of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. The "insurmountable hostility" between science and religion is a caricature, a thought-cliché, perhaps useful as a satire on groupthink, but hardly representative of reality.<snip>
As we journey from the personal to the public religious lives of scientists we will meet the nearly 50 percent of elite scientists like Margaret who are religious in a traditional sense and the over 20 percent more like Evelyn who, though eschewing religion, still see themselves as spiritual to some extent, with spiritual sensibilities that often derive from and are borne out in the work they do as scientists. For the proportion of scientists who are, like Arik, indeed committed secularists, we will draw out the complexity in their reasons for rejecting, leaving, or ignoring religion.¹¹<snip>
American public schools have suffered from the religion-science conflicts. Young Americans are not learning what they should about science because their parents' quarrels and impasses are holding them back from studying topics like evolution or from pursuing science careers (out of fear that such pursuits are incompatible with their religious beliefs).<snip>
If the public thinks that to be a successful scientist, you have to be either antireligious or clueless about religion, this can only be to the detriment of scientific progress and public funding.
<snip>
Other studies have been predicated on narrow definitions of religion. A weakness of such research is the assumption that scientists will define religion in the same ways as do other groups of people. I both analyzed my respondents according to conventional definitions of religion and allowed them to tell me the different ways in which religion and science might operate in their lives outside of a conventional understanding (allowing the generation of a category like "spiritual atheist").

So again, a majority of scientists surveyed found science and religion compatible, including some atheists. Apparently many scientists (the National Academy of Sciences, some scientists at Berkeley, a Fellow at the Royal Society, and a majority at the "top research universities" in the U.S.) find science and religion compatible.

 

[Egg]

Re your false analogy, science contradicting science vs science contradicting god beliefs, You are confusing some basic principles here.

Within science, different interpretations of the evidence are allowed. You follow the evidence to a conclusion. Any conflict between different conclusions is allowable because there is an implied truth and we accept that the evidence will eventually resolve the conflict.

With god beliefs, you start with the conclusion and if the evidence contradicts it, you go with the belief over the evidence. The two processes, science and religion, are completely different and not compatible. You can't follow the evidence and ignore it at the same time.

Well, two issues spring to mind. Firstly, I went to some length to establish what Humes fork's intended meaning was precisely and my response was to that meaning. You are arguing a different kind of incompatibility. Secondly, it was not an analogy, but what I saw as a logical progression from what was described.

I'm not changing any arguments. I'm trying to get you to see what you cannot see in what I've posted. Such is the nature of our brain processes.

Let's go back to the origin of this discussion track:

You are trying to argue that my hypothesis is speculation. That is the nature of an hypothesis. One proposes [X evidence] will show [Y conclusion].

To support said hypothesis one might need to discuss the rationale why/how [X evidence] shows [Y conclusion]. I'm not going to do that here. I don't need to. It is not my original hypothesis. It is a well known hypothesis and the legitimacy of it is widely accepted. So I'm not going off on this side track with you in this thread.

I have provided an example for how one could test a "one-off miracle". Feel free to cite another "one-off miracle" and I'll be happy to discuss another one.

What one-off miracle was that supposed to be a test for?

And yes, it was an issue of speculation and theology just in the matter of forming a useful hypothesis. Just as if I wanted to test to see if I had mice in my garage and suggested that I could leave out a pile of sand and a bucket and if there were no sandcastle in the morning I could be confident that no mice were present.

 

[citizenzen]

I've read parts (sorry, not all yet) of this thread ...

Thanks for adding to the thread.

I doubt your post will appeal to those dead-set against finding compatibility between science and religion. They seem to be quite immovable in this regard. But you and others have made a good case.

Prepare yourself for vehement rebuttal in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, two issues spring to mind. Firstly, I went to some length to establish what Humes fork's intended meaning was precisely and my response was to that meaning. You are arguing a different kind of incompatibility. Secondly, it was not an analogy, but what I saw as a logical progression from what was described.


What one-off miracle was that supposed to be a test for?

Any one-off miracle you want to name from the Bible. Take your pick.

And yes, it was an issue of speculation and theology just in the matter of forming a useful hypothesis. Just as if I wanted to test to see if I had mice in my garage and suggested that I could leave out a pile of sand and a bucket and if there were no sandcastle in the morning I could be confident that no mice were present.

You don't appear to be aware of the logical argument, Modus tollens:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

A simple example given in Wiki under Evidence of absence^WP is easier to understand than the formal logic entry:

A simple example of evidence of absence: checking one's pocket for spare change and finding nothing but being confident that one would have found it if it were there. This is an example of modus tollens, a type of logical argument.

As you appear unaware of this logical argument, it is no wonder you don't understand the hypothesis, "If a supernatural being inspired the Bible, one would expect some evidence the Bible contained knowledge the people who first wrote the stories would not have known without the input from a supernatural being."

That evidence is not found in the Bible. Why would a supernatural being only tell humans what they already knew? The best explanation for finding such results is humans wrote the Bible without any supernatural influence. A supernatural influence on the Bible's contents cannot be found. This is a common method of formulating an hypothesis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've read parts (sorry, not all yet) of this thread and I'm confused. So many posters seem to contradict what I find on science sites and other places, especially when they claim science disproves religion or precludes it or other such exclusions. Or when they say (maybe not in this thread, but on this forum) that true scientists can't believe in God(s).

Can somebody explain to me why scientific groups and others say, not that science and religion are not compatible, but that they deal with different things? That science does not disprove religion? That many scientists are religious in various ways? That the division most posters in this thread embrace is that of a vocal minority?

See this, from the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, 2008:So not only do they say that science and religion are separate, that science cannot investigate "supernatural forces or entities," but also that there is no need to create controversy by pitting science and religion against each other. Very different from most posters here.


What about this, from Understanding Science*:So, they say that supernatural beings (e.g., God) are "outside the realm of science."

And this, again from Understanding Science:*So science neither supports nor contradicts the existence of supernatural entities. Also, science and religion are not at war, despite some "vocal individuals stridently declaring their beliefs." Hmm, they must have used a time machine to read this thread.


And, because it speaks to my level, one more from Understanding Science:*Says that science and religion are not at war, that, in fact, many scientists are religious and many religious people view the natural world "through an evidence-based, scientific lens...."

*The Understanding Science site was produced by the UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with a diverse group of scientists and teachers, and was funded by the National Science Foundation.


There is a very interesting discussion of science and religion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It was a little over my head on the logic part, but this particular bit made me grin:


From Exchanges in science and religion, a lecture at The Royal Society, London, by Revd Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS:The reverse of incompatibility between science and religion; rather, they can compliment each other.


Although you must pay for the full article, here is the abstract from an article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 50, Issue 3, pages 552–569, September 2011,"Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science," by Elaine Howard Ecklund¹, Jerry Z. Park², Katherine L. Sorrell³:So most scientists they surveyed don't see science and religion as always in conflict.


I couldn't afford to buy the book, but the parts I could preview looked interesting. From Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund, Oxford University Press, 2010:So again, a majority of scientists surveyed found science and religion compatible, including some atheists. Apparently many scientists (the National Academy of Sciences, some scientists at Berkeley, a Fellow at the Royal Society, and a majority at the "top research universities" in the U.S.) find science and religion compatible.

I do love the effort you put into your posts.

However, from my point of view, these are typical science generated apologies for not having to confront the obvious when it comes to god beliefs.

It is no surprise there are many, (even a majority though I do believe that tide is shifting), of scientists who prefer not to challenge god beliefs. Gould's NOMA is popular and was only described in print in 1997. It is still accepted by many in the scientific community. But not by all and not without the challenge of objections. It's hardly a consensus.

Our own Dr Plait, the Bad Astronomer, prefers this non-confrontational apology that allows a double standard for god beliefs among skeptics and the scientific community. His point is tolerate god beliefs because not doing so needlessly shrinks the skeptical community.


But, science is only about the "majority" when the majority draw a consensus conclusion based on evidence which can be evaluated and confirmed. So the fact there is a scientific consensus on global warming is an important point, but the fact the majority in the scientific community weren't so sure about moving crustal plates or the cause of gastric ulcers being a bacterial infection did not turn out to be important.


No one here is saying scientists cannot tolerate god beliefs of individuals who are otherwise critical thinkers. Personally, I believe the consequences of such tolerance are not being considered. But there are also consequences of not tolerating god beliefs within our community. Take your pick:

Offend otherwise critical thinking people now by challenging their god beliefs,
or, run the risk of exposing the hypocrisy of giving god beliefs a double standard pass when challenged to explain why god beliefs are OK but other woo beliefs are not.​

I am more than familiar with NOMA and the arguments one cannot 'prove' gods don't exist. I am aware these are probably majority opinions in the skeptic and scientific communities. That does not change my view nor weaken my resolve that I am correct.

The emperor has no clothes IMO as far as NOMA goes. The idea god beliefs serve some purpose science cannot loses its appeal when you change perspectives. There are many things about the needs of a human being which are based in our socio-cultural-biological essence. Science serves to describe and successfully interact with the Universe, not fulfill every human need. But when one uses science to investigate human need, mythical god beliefs are not a special thing, they are an indoctrinated need.


And I've already described my paradigm shifted view of 'proving' gods don't exist. That proposal asks the wrong question. The correct question is, when one looks at the evidence for god beliefs what conclusions are evident? Following the evidence to the conclusion, one finds overwhelming evidence god beliefs are fictional human creations. There is no evidence supporting alternative conclusions. Feel free to present contradictory evidence if you have any.

Asking the right question, what does the evidence support, is not in conflict with the principles in the scientific process that one doesn't seek proofs, one seeks the best explanation for the evidence. The concept that new evidence is always possible has been abused when it comes to god beliefs. Not being able to prove gods don't exist is also NOT an argument that they might. Yet it is often stated as if it were evidence gods might exist. The scientific principle that new evidence is always possible should not stop us from drawing the conclusion based on current evidence that gods are fictional human creations.


So how is science supposed to be compatible with religion (excluding religions proposed that contain no god or other magical beliefs) when the scientific process reveals the religious beliefs to be fiction. Are god believers within the scientific community willing to admit they believe in fiction but find it fulfills some human need so who cares? Do theist scientists simply ignore or deny the overwhelming evidence god beliefs are fictional human creations? That occurs but is such denial compatible or simply tolerable currently?

 

[Kopji]

I go back to the question of which religion are you talking about? I think that we naturally fall back on the one we're exposed to the most, Christianity, which is rife with mythology and the supernatural and just assume that is the model that all others follow.

Here's an excerpt from an article on Religious naturalism

Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism... -snip-
​

There. Are we happy now?

The blog tries to establish a foundation that simply says that "religion" is not the proper label for such beliefs, and that they would more rightly fall under a description of "moral philosophy". The label of "religion" should be avoided in order to avoid confusion. This does seem a bit naive, (and coming from me that's a pretty serious accusation).

I tend to think Sean is trying to close the barn door after the cows are roaming free, and in fact have had time for baby cows to be born, who are also running free and have never seen the inside of the barn.

To my own earlier comment, "supernaturalism or not" is not a good dividing line for the kind of belief system that is incompatible with science. If someone believes that "all things are possible", that seems just as problematic. Science works with limits, and faith does not.

That raises a question that is not as easily answered - can science benefit with a little reason flung to the free winds of faith and nonsense once in a while?

 

[Egg]

Any one-off miracle you want to name from the Bible. Take your pick.

So are you saying you believe had them all covered in that argument?

You don't appear to be aware of the logical argument, Modus tollens:A simple example given in Wiki under Evidence of absence^WP is easier to understand than the formal logic entry:As you appear unaware of this logical argument, it is no wonder you don't understand the hypothesis, "If a supernatural being inspired the Bible, one would expect some evidence the Bible contained knowledge the people who first wrote the stories would not have known without the input from a supernatural being."

Unnecessarily snarky and a waste of effort. All you needed to do to confirm I understood that part of the argument was read what I wrote earlier:

Yes, if we can know we're not seeing something we'd expect to see, that's when we can say we have evidence that something didn't happen or doesn't exist. The problem is figuring out what it is we would expect to see. I would think that becomes a largely philosophical (and in this case theological) discussion.

Anyway, we're going round in circles. You should realise that it's possible to understand what you're saying, understand logic and still disagree with you. It happens often enough on these forums.

That evidence is not found in the Bible. Why would a supernatural being only tell humans what they already knew? The best explanation for finding such results is humans wrote the Bible without any supernatural influence. A supernatural influence on the Bible's contents cannot be found. This is a common method of formulating an hypothesis.

Just like my mice, yes, no sandcastles=no mice. Back up your assumption with some evidence or some argument that isn't just an argument from incredulity/lack of imagination otherwise it carries little more weight than mere speculative suggestion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So are you saying you believe had them all covered in that argument?

Unnecessarily snarky and a waste of effort. All you needed to do to confirm I understood that part of the argument was read what I wrote earlier: Anyway, we're going round in circles. You should realise that it's possible to understand what you're saying, understand logic and still disagree with you. It happens often enough on these forums.

Just like my mice, yes, no sandcastles=no mice. Back up your assumption with some evidence or some argument that isn't just an argument from incredulity/lack of imagination otherwise it carries little more weight than mere speculative suggestion.

Eggy my friend, I posted a legit hypothesis and cited the logic behind it. You think it is snarky to cite the logical argument. Yet the problem as I see it is you are not aware of the logical argument. What more can I do?

 

[Egg]

Eggy my friend, I posted a legit hypothesis and cited the logic behind it. You think it is snarky to cite the logical argument. Yet the problem as I see it is you are not aware of the logical argument. What more can I do?

Not snarky at all if you're just showing your reasoning rather than trying to use it to suggest I must be ignorant/lack understanding for disagreeing.

Since you still are under the impression that I'm not understanding Modus tollens, how does the following example work?

If you had overwhelming evidence and a genuine, sound argument that no god(s) exist, atheists and skeptical thinkers would be citing your argument all over the internet. They're not. Not Q then not P.

 

[Humes fork]

I've read parts (sorry, not all yet) of this thread and I'm confused. So many posters seem to contradict what I find on science sites and other places, especially when they claim science disproves religion or precludes it or other such exclusions. Or when they say (maybe not in this thread, but on this forum) that true scientists can't believe in God(s).

"Disprove" is too strong a word. And can you please show me someone saying that true scientists can't be religious? Not even Dawkins says that. You are setting up a strawman.

Can somebody explain to me why scientific groups and others say, not that science and religion are not compatible, but that they deal with different things? That science does not disprove religion? That many scientists are religious in various ways? That the division most posters in this thread embrace is that of a vocal minority?

But science and religions don't deal with different things. Religions give their accounts of the origin of the world and life, and of human history. Science gives another account. Guess what? These accounts contradict each other!

The idea that science and religion deal with different things come in the majority of cases from sympathetic non-believers, not from religious people. Religious people couldn't care less about what non-believers consider to be their religion's "proper magisterium".

See this, from the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, 2008:So not only do they say that science and religion are separate, that science cannot investigate "supernatural forces or entities," but also that there is no need to create controversy by pitting science and religion against each other. Very different from most posters here.

According to the posted link in the OP (of which there is a 99% probability that you didn't read), it is perfectly concievable that science could conclude that supernatural forces are the best explanation.

There is a very interesting discussion of science and religion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It was a little over my head on the logic part, but this particular bit made me grin:

The idea of naturalism as a religion is just plain ridiculous. It's only slightly different from saying that evolution is a religion.

From Exchanges in science and religion, a lecture at The Royal Society, London, by Revd Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS:The reverse of incompatibility between science and religion; rather, they can compliment each other.

How do they compliment each other? If current religions can complement science, what about Norse of Greek mythology? Can they complement science as well?

Although you must pay for the full article, here is the abstract from an article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 50, Issue 3, pages 552–569, September 2011,"Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science," by Elaine Howard Ecklund¹, Jerry Z. Park², Katherine L. Sorrell³:So most scientists they surveyed don't see science and religion as always in conflict.

But who says they are always in conflict? You are setting up a strawman. When religions state that you follow the golden rule, they don't conflict with science. Morality isn't in conflict with science. But religions make plenty of fact claims that are in conflict with science, and those claims tend to be very central to them.

I couldn't afford to buy the book, but the parts I could preview looked interesting. From Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund, Oxford University Press, 2010:So again, a majority of scientists surveyed found science and religion compatible, including some atheists. Apparently many scientists (the National Academy of Sciences, some scientists at Berkeley, a Fellow at the Royal Society, and a majority at the "top research universities" in the U.S.) find science and religion compatible.

"Spirituality" (a slippy word) is not necessarily in conflict with science, it depends on how it is defined. To maintain that science and religion are compatible usually amounts to redefining "religion" to something that few religious people will recognize, such as being only about morality and meaning, which if you look at the real world, is not the case.

 

[Dani]

If you had overwhelming evidence and a genuine, sound argument that no god(s) exist, atheists and skeptical thinkers would be citing your argument all over the internet. They're not. Not Q then not P.

I disagree with the premises. The specific argument Skeptic Ginger was making is one of the most popular arguments against the existence of God. It's not just "her" argument.