Why science and religion are not compatible

[citizenzen]

But the religions give different answers to these questions. How do you determine which one is correct?

Likewise, how do you determine which one decides the incompatibility of them all?

 

[Humes fork]

Likewise, how do you determine which one decides the incompatibility of them all?

Can you please reformulate that?

 

[tsig]

Likewise, how do you determine which one decides the incompatibility of them all?

One says you're going to hell if you don't accept Allah the other says Christ.

 

[citizenzen]

Can you please reformulate that?

It was awkwardly worded.

I wrote it as I was going out the door and knew at the time that my grade school English teachers would frown upon my effort.

Anyway ...

You asked earlier, "... religions give different answers to these questions. How do you determine which one is correct?" And I think this is a great question. Because you acknowledge the scope of faith and wonder how a person is able to reconcile the wide variety of beliefs out there to determine which is correct.

But that same acknowledgement of scope is not present in the OP. Religion is lumped into this single "thing" that is seen as incompatible with science, yet how does one know what is incompatible? It's only by simplistically homogenizing these diverse beliefs into "religion" that the OP stands a chance of holding up as an argument.

I'm glad to see that when reversed, you see the problem with that concept. I do hope that you'll likewise see the difficulty it presents to the original premise.

 

[FattyCatty]

But the religions give different answers to these questions. How do you determine which one is correct?

Read philosophers and theologians; add personal beliefs and insights and decide what I believe.

The questions you pose have scientific answers.

I disagree.

Let's deal with them one by one. Can't speak for everyone, but I think the modern scientific answers have a greater probability of being right than the myths of Iron Age desert dwellers.

This would be true for things in the natural (physical) world. Not for metaphysics and/or theology.

No.

Science doesn't and can't know. This question is outside the realm of science. Also, the article you referenced is merely opinion, with only as much validity as any other opinion (even mine). And the opinion in the reference is contrary to many other opinions on what science is (see my previous posts). In fact, it might be interpreted as incompatible with science.

Because each of your ancestors successfully replicated before they died.

Why?

You cease to exist.

Prove it. Where's your evidence?

Boy, the lack of logic some people will go to to protect their beliefs! From your link:

Adam claims that “simply is no controlled, experimental[ly] verifiable information” regarding life after death. By these standards, there is no controlled, experimentally verifiable information regarding whether the Moon is made of green cheese.

This is a false analogy. Life after death is outside the natural world, which is why there cannot be "controlled, experimentally verifiable information" about it. The composition of the Moon is part of the natural world and we can observe it and find "controlled, experimental[ly] verifiable information" about it.

Sure, we can take spectra of light reflecting from the Moon, and even send astronauts up there and bring samples back for analysis. But that’s only scratching the surface, as it were. What if the Moon is almost all green cheese, but is covered with a layer of dust a few meters thick? Can you really say that you know this isn’t true? Until you have actually examined every single cubic centimeter of the Moon’s interior, you don’t really have experimentally verifiable information, do you? So maybe agnosticism on the green-cheese issue is warranted. (Come up with all the information we actually do have about the Moon; I promise you I can fit it into the green-cheese hypothesis.)

This is just silly. Using this "reasoning," science can never draw any conclusions about anything.

 

[Brainache]

...
This would be true for things in the natural (physical) world. Not for metaphysics and/or theology.

...

Can you tell me why you assert that the supernatural is real?

Is God the only thing outside of the natural (physical) universe?

How many are out there, and how could any human being know about this?

 

[FattyCatty]

Can you tell me why you assert that the supernatural is real?

Is God the only thing outside of the natural (physical) universe?

How many are out there, and how could any human being know about this?

My assertion is that science cannot investigate the supernatural. It is by definition outside the realm of science.

You obviously have not read my (admittedly long) posts, as I have mentioned aspects of the supernatural other than God(s) that are outside the realm of science.

I have no idea how many there are -- how could I? Numerous events could occur and entities exist of which I (and everyone else) am unaware. Those events or entities that people believe in are, I think, usually known because someone somewhere at some time saw or felt something.

Geez, you guys on this Forum are not only convincing me to be more and more religious, now you're almost persuading me to believe in ghosts.

 

[citizenzen]

My assertion is that science cannot investigate the supernatural. It is by definition outside the realm of science.

Always outside our current realm of scientific understanding ... what a marvelously convenient realm to exist in.

 

[Trent Wray]

My assertion is that science cannot investigate the supernatural. It is by definition outside the realm of science.

I think you're actually touching upon the area where the MDC is actually questionable.

"Prove you can talk to dead people".

Okay ... so I go speak to some dead spirits, and they give me fact after convincing and verifiable fact that there is no way I could have possibly known, other than speaking with those dead spirits directly ... and thus, it can only mean one thing: I am indeed speaking to dead people.

So is it still supernatural if it's verifiable ?

I think if we're being honest with ourselves, "investigating and proving the supernatural" is more about wowing us in ways we don't expect to be wow'ed and believe to be impossible, but are shown that there are no "tricks" involved. Simple as that. Supernatural = what we think is impossible. "Magic". And that level changes as knowledge changes. So what spooked Einstein years ago, is high school level knowledge now and no longer spooky.

And the whole "any sufficiently advanced tech looks like magic" routine no longer wows our thinking .... because if we can explain something through technology, well ..... we are less likely to fall for that. So we look at "supernatural" as involving the lack of technology to pull off the magic trick that is "real".

All in all .... it's still kind of a ********* standard, imo, that some just aren't intellectually honest about in regards to their expectations.

 

[Trent Wray]

And although I don't struggle with fiction being considered "fact" .... I do see fiction as being a certain level of "real" in the way that it influences people. Batman isn't real .... but we experience life lessons when we watch the movies, read the comics. We play with the action figures. We dress up that way for Halloween. Some do it for entertainment, some look for deeper philosophical issues with Batman verses the Joker ... still others express themselves in practical ways through the mythos, or look for practical guidance through the mythos. So although Batman isn't real .... the influence of the fictional idea IS. And suppose one day someone is actually quite capable of pulling off Batman like feats, with Batman like financial resources, and Batman like adventures .... even calling themselves Batman. Can we then say that we took a fictional being, and "created" an environment which produced something real from something that wasn't real ? We created an egg which produced a chicken ?

This logic is applied in the courtroom all the time ... when trying to decide who is responsible for actions. Did the video games cause the kid to kill, or was the kid already prone to killing ? Etc and so forth. At what point is fiction treated as though it's "real" .... ?

 

[FattyCatty]

Always outside our current realm of scientific understanding ... what a marvelously convenient realm to exist in.

Well, I'm not the one who decided science investigated the natural world but not the supernatural. I'm just someone who quotes the definitions/explanations of science I've found, which state that the supernatural world is not in the purview of science. And I guess I'll quote some of them again, because you obviously didn't read them the last times I quoted them.

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.

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.

And more:

God, as part of the 'supernatural world,' was said to be outside the realm of science as part of the explanation of what science is, what is does, and what it doesn't do; not as a reason "all the evidence fails to support the conclusion that a god or gods exist...."

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles.../gottlieb.html

Science, as an intellectual activity, encompasses observations about the natural world that can be measured and quantified, and the ideas based thereon can be tested, verified, falsified, or modified.

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html

1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.

Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology​

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science9.html

Does this mean that there is no god?

No, it doesn't mean that. The results of science suggest that there isn't a god who created the world 6000 years ago, and that there isn't a god who made humans in his or her own image as his or her own special point of attention.
<snip>
However, none of this precludes the existence of a deity - an as-yet-unseen very knowledgeable being in some way cognizant of, and perhaps even responsible for, what we call the universe. No one will ever be able to prove that there is no god, or are no gods.

I think you're actually touching upon the area where the MDC is actually questionable.

"Prove you can talk to dead people".

Okay ... so I go speak to some dead spirits, and they give me fact after convincing and verifiable fact that there is no way I could have possibly known, other than speaking with those dead spirits directly ... and thus, it can only mean one thing: I am indeed speaking to dead people.

So is it still supernatural if it's verifiable?

I don't know. If it is part of the natural world, it's not supernatural. If it is supernatural, it's not verifiable. I would guess that if something supernatural manifests in the natural world, its appearance there would be verifiable, but not its existence as something supernatural.

I think I would go with ECREE and take a lot of convincing that your facts were verifiable and that there was no other way to get your facts than from dead people (spirits). Also, would brain waves, or whatever the technical term is, show something happening?

The phrase "double standard" is also incorrect, as this section of Understanding Science demonstrates:

Within science, the term natural refers to any element of the physical universe — whether made by humans or not. This includes matter, the forces that act on matter, energy, the constituents of the biological world, humans, human society, and the products of that society.
<snip>
In practice, what's natural is often identified by testability. Natural things behave in predictable ways — though we may not yet fully understand them — which have observable outcomes. This predictability means that we can test hypotheses about natural entities by making observations. Ghosts, for example, are supernatural entities without a basis in the physical universe and so are not subject to the laws of that universe. Hence, ghosts are outside the purview of science, and we cannot study their existence (or lack thereof) with the tools of science. If, however, we hypothesize ghosts to be natural entities, made up of matter and energy and bound by the laws of the universe, then we can study them with the tools of science — and must accept the outcome if the tests we perform suggest that ghosts do not exist as natural entities.

I think if we're being honest with ourselves, "investigating and proving the supernatural" is more about wowing us in ways we don't expect to be wow'ed and believe to be impossible, but are shown that there are no "tricks" involved. Simple as that. Supernatural = what we think is impossible. "Magic". And that level changes as knowledge changes. So what spooked Einstein years ago, is high school level knowledge now and no longer spooky.

And the whole "any sufficiently advanced tech looks like magic" routine no longer wows our thinking .... because if we can explain something through technology, well ..... we are less likely to fall for that. So we look at "supernatural" as involving the lack of technology to pull off the magic trick that is "real".

All in all .... it's still kind of a ********* standard, imo, that some just aren't intellectually honest about in regards to their expectations.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You can't prove the supernatural with the tools of science. I disagree with the last paragraph, I think; I'm not sure I understand it either.

 

[Brainache]

My assertion is that science cannot investigate the supernatural. It is by definition outside the realm of science.

But what makes you think that there is a supernatural realm outside of science? That is what I don't understand.

You obviously have not read my (admittedly long) posts, as I have mentioned aspects of the supernatural other than God(s) that are outside the realm of science.

Like ghosts, fairies, leprechauns etc? I agree that they are outside the realm of science, but that is because they don't exist.

I have no idea how many there are -- how could I?

Exactly. How could you know that there is anything there at all?

Numerous events could occur and entities exist of which I (and everyone else) am unaware. Those events or entities that people believe in are, I think, usually known because someone somewhere at some time saw or felt something.

If they saw or felt something, then that is within the realm of science. A material effect occurred in someone's brain (at the very least) and therefore the cause can potentially be detected.

Have you considered the option that people just make stuff up?

Geez, you guys on this Forum are not only convincing me to be more and more religious, now you're almost persuading me to believe in ghosts.

I'm sorry to hear that, but if you are Christian, you already believe in at least one Ghost.

 

[Aridas]

But what makes you think that there is a supernatural realm outside of science? That is what I don't understand.

I'm pretty sure that he's not specifically arguing for the existence of the supernatural. Merely that "science" does not and cannot deal with the supernatural, by definition.

If that is the case, I firmly support that statement. Once we start moving into the realm of logic, though, many supernatural claims can be shown to be impossible. Continuing with logic, all, or nearly all of the others, tend to seem to be extremely unlikely/irrelevant, to the point where there's no good reason to allow them to influence one's life or decisions, at all. Bearing that in mind, science simply does not address the supernatural, but other methods of understanding may, though the reliability of many of those methods can usually be called into doubt.

 

[Brainache]

I'm pretty sure that he's not specifically arguing for the existence of the supernatural. Merely that "science" does not and cannot deal with the supernatural, by definition.

If that is the case, I firmly support that statement. Once we start moving into the realm of logic, though, many supernatural claims can be shown to be impossible. Continuing with logic, all, or nearly all of the others, tend to seem to be extremely unlikely/irrelevant, to the point where there's no good reason to allow them to influence one's life or decisions, at all. Bearing that in mind, science simply does not address the supernatural, but other methods of understanding may, though the reliability of many of those methods can usually be called into doubt.

The supernatural is some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card that people play when their beliefs turn out to be irrational.

I wonder if anyone ever proposed a "Subnatural" realm; Also outside the realm of science, but in the other direction?

 

[Aridas]

The supernatural is some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card that people play when their beliefs turn out to be irrational.

It is often used as such, yes. That doesn't change that "science" doesn't address it. That "science" doesn't address it, of course, has absolutely no bearing on whether it's true or not, and removes most or all objective reason to believe in whichever supernatural claim is on hand. Faith is rarely all that objective, though.

I wonder if anyone ever proposed a "Subnatural" realm; Also outside the realm of science, but in the other direction?

Maybe, if they were playing with semantics, like you. That said, what would you propose would fall into such a category?

 

[biomorph]

The supernatural is some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card that people play when their beliefs turn out to be irrational.

Exactly, and to boot just (not even) fancy rhetoric.

The role of these sorts of ideas take is I think, primarily a defensive one where placing some idea these people hold "beyond" investigation by "science" implies, nay even introduces the concept of division and protection.

By this I mean that which can be explained, and that which (they consider) to be somehow forever unexplainable.

Seeing as the method of discovery that is most useful to describe the reality we live in is called science, they pick on that method introducing limits on what the method can achieve and cannot.

The problem with this type of strategy is that there is ultimately given enough time nowhere that science cannot go or is "off limits".

Science is a method of finding out about all reality regardless of whether some consider the personal reality they inhabit off limits to investigation or not.
To consider that method limited is also a divisive system, so that the person can compartmentalise that which they do not wish to understand from that which they do.

Thus NOMA is born, and erronius.

Given that science is a method, and moves forward with more understanding of previously hard to understand and perhaps considered off limited subjects all the time the so-called "supernatural" becomes understandable, and in effect not so "super", that is to say "beyond the reach of the (implied) limited human understanding.

Are we ultimately beyond understanding all things?
Well so far, given we have the tools of better scientific methods and reasonable explanations all the time, as time moves on, probably not.

There might be the unknown, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns, however so far, there are no really true unknowables as yet.

Although there is a good case for being able to say "this thing can never be known by us", this really is not unknowable, we just might not be able in reality to know about this unknown thing.
However if we could know about it, we would understand it, and therefore it is not, essentially unknowable........just unreachable for practical reasons for us.

The caveat of course is that some of reality is difficult to unpick and even more difficult to undertand to many, so it takes time. however time is on the scientific methods side, and not on the supernatural's" side.

We have the time possibly to understand much more than we do now and this fact is especially annoying to the faithheads, who's domain of head in the sand ignorance and many false explanations is based in the past, and refuses (because of dogma) to and cannot really catch up.

To do so would in many cases put their faith under threat, and thereore trigger a defence mechanism, should there be one.

This assault from finding out about reality on a proactive level frightens those that were sure of their position and further the closedmindeness is exposed, they become unsure and know they are not actually really stupid, but are made to look so.

Further defence of such positions makes the feeling of being made to look foolish worse, but the defence, however fallacious, is a natural defensive reaction of their dogma to being shown to be in error.

 

[Aridas]

Thus NOMA is born, and erroniuserroneous.

ftfy. More seriously, the questions usually left to religion in NOMA are ones that simply cannot be answered definitively, regardless of the method.

Are we ultimately beyond understanding all things?

I'll say this simply. Yes. If you qualify that to be all "real things" or all "physical things" or all "physical processes" or even all "things that interact with our reality," it turns into a much less definite "maybe." Science, certainly, is, by definition, conceptually limited in what it can actually say. If one adds in other methods of understanding, the gaps in our understanding shrink.

Well so far, given we have the tools of better scientific methods and reasonable explanations all the time, as time moves on, probably not.

"All" is an absolute. Omniscience, really, in this case. I consider the chances of humanity becoming the equivalent to omniscient to be incredibly unlikely, myself.

There might be the unknown, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns, however so far, there are no really true unknowables as yet.

This begs the question... if it's truly unknowable, how could we know of it in the first place?

 

[citizenzen]

More seriously, the questions usually left to religion in NOMA are ones that simply cannot be answered definitively, regardless of the method.

How do we know what can and can't be answered by science?

Isn't it better to say that as yet these questions haven't been answered, but I cannot say what the future will hold regarding science and these questions?

 

[Trent Wray]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You can't prove the supernatural with the tools of science. I disagree with the last paragraph, I think; I'm not sure I understand it either.

I was trying to say that the question of whether or not proving some aspect of the supernatural is "real" or not, isn't a matter of being able to prove it with science ... it's more a matter of how it makes us personally "feel" based on our expectations of what is possible or isn't possible.

In that sense, what we view as being supernatural changes over time and it's not only because our technology and ability to test for it changes, but because our own personal reactions and expectations change.

Like watching someone levitate. Maybe the first time you saw this, it spooked you ..... gave you pause, whatever. Then you learned how the trick is done, and so now every time you see someone levitate .... even if you're not sure they performed the trick the same way that you learned it was done ... you can easily assume it's not a supernatural levitation because MAYBE they performed the trick in a predictable manner, as you learned.

So the exact basis for understanding how one person levitates isn't necessary to you ... and it's not because you actually cared to find out how one person levitated over another .... it's because it no longer has the same effect on you, once you found out how a person could appear to levitate through a trick and this explanation satisfied you.

So when it comes to the "supernatural" ... I think if we're being intellectually honest, a lot of us only care about proof so long as it still has some entertainment value, or spook factor, etc and so forth. IOW, so long as it still has some kind of "hold" over us psychologically, we don't have to have proof. Simple explanations can be applied without actually investigating anything and it makes us feel better.

So every single vision of god is frontal lobe epilepsy. And if it's not ... well, it could be, and that's good enough. But before we knew about frontal lobe epilepsy, we might have been more inclined to keep searching for an explanation that we liked. Now we can apply that explanation every single time, even if the cause is something else. It doesn't matter to us, because the most likely explanation has now become the best choice. The supernatural has been solved.

IOW, the problem of the supernatural is only a problem so long as we aren't bored with it, or acceptance of the explanations of it are good enough by our current personal standards of what an acceptable explanation is.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is just a really lame attempt to add some credibility to the Great Sky Fairy. Hence the laughter.