Why science and religion are not compatible

[westprog]

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.

And there is no scientific text making the claim that miracles do not occur. That is not a scientific claim. It's a belief, not subject to scientific test, proof or disproof.

 

[westprog]

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.

A creationist historian might manage medieval Europe up to a point, but he'd be in something of a bind discussing Egyptian influences if he had to deny that Egyptian civilisation went back further than six thousand years.

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

If he started trying to tell people that the origins of civilisation didn't go back beyond 4000 BC, he well might be. There's an obvious contradiction there. A creationist would have to teach something contrary to his beliefs. He might get away with not discussing the question, but he'd be constantly skating on thin ice.

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.

But not all. It's perfectly possible to be a catholic cosmologist without contradiction. I don't know how many there are, but since there's no contradiction involved, there is no reason why a catholic cosmologist shouldn't be just as effective as an atheist. A creationist cosmologist would have to either abandon his beliefs, or be a fairly rotten cosmologist.

 

[westprog]

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

That's a very important point. The disagreement is not between atheists and religious scientists. It's between most scientists and the people who think there's a contradiction.

 

[westprog]

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.

One disturbing point about this thread is the belief that one can claim that one's personal belief system has been scientifically proven. This is not an advance for skepticism or rationality.

 

[westprog]

Again ... some religions give their accounts of the origin of the world and life, and of human history.

Some. Some. Some.

Why do you keep describing religion as a monolith and ignore the fact that it encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and practices?

You do it because it fits your premise. You reached a conclusion and now simply choose the evidence that agrees with your conclusion. Evidence presented that doesn't agree with your conclusion is ignored.

That isn't very scientific of you.

In any case, where religion conflicts with science, yes, there is a conflict. The disagreement in this thread is the non-scientific philosophical claim that any and all supernatural affairs are in conflict with science.

 

[westprog]

From the examples provided in the OP I think Sean Carroll's position is that science is equivalent not just to methodological naturalism but to philosophical naturalism -- that the supernatural does not exist. It is the case that the philosophical position of naturalism/materialism is incompatible with the types of religious stances that Carroll is most interested in. It is not the case that philosophical naturalism is opposed to everything that goes under the name of religion.

The way some folks have tried to get out of that issue is by renaming certain religions -- primarily some forms of Buddhism -- as philosophies and not religions at all. I don't agree with that move, but so be it.

In any case, even if Sean Carroll wants to extend the definition of science to include philosophical naturalism, I think that he lacks the authority to do so, unless he's been appointed science's infallible philosopher in chief.

Indeed, the idea that a particular philosophical position should be imposed on science is profoundly unscientific, and when it's been tried in the past, it has had very bad consequences.

 

[westprog]

¿Are some people saying that Science can't study why people will make up such poor excuses to have such a so-called god?

Paul

Science can of course do that. If the claim was then made that this could be used as evidence to prove that a God didn't exist, then I'd be fairly sure that the paper would be rejected from publication. And rightly so, because it would be making unscientific claims.

 

[westprog]

I'm pretty sure that, even including the US, only a tiny minority of Christians take the first creation story seriously

I think they take it seriously, they just don't take it literally.

 

[westprog]

Perhaps I'm confused by your post here but the Sanford Encyclopedia authors are hardly a definitive source to define a groups of scientists as treating science as a religion because they are atheists. I'm trying to parse your statement some other way but failing.

Scientists who are atheists are not treating science as a religion. They are treating it as science, and leaving religion apart. Scientists who a christians, buddhists, etc, are not treating science as a religion. They are treating it as science, and leaving religion apart.

Scientists who are atheists, and who make claims about religion not supported by science, but rather by their own philosophical beliefs, which purport to be science, are treating science as a religion. That's a very, very different thing from a claim that scientists who are atheists make science into a religion.

 

[westprog]

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

It's not necessary to think that the supernatural exists to accept that its existence or non-existence cannot be scientifically determined.

 

[westprog]

Bearing that in mind, science simply does not address the supernatural, but other methods of understanding may,

Exactly so. Much of the reasoning on this thread is non-scientific in nature. That doesn't necessarily make it invalid. It just makes it not science.

The question of what is and is not valid scientific reasoning is important, and that scientific standards should be relaxed in order to satisfy philosophical preferences is a very bad idea.

 

[westprog]

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

Yes, that would be things included in the "natural" realm. An alternative name would be "natural".

 

[westprog]

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

You don't know that.

 

[Brainache]

Yes, that would be things included in the "natural" realm. An alternative name would be "natural".

What natural things are outside the realm of science?

Anyway, "the subnatural" was just another of my lame attempts at wit. Sorry. I mean people only ever talk of "supernatural" ie: Above or Beyond Nature, I want to know if there is supposed to be anything below or behind nature.

Actually, now that I think about it, isn't that where woos keep saying God is hiding? At the base of the natural world, the foundation of reality?

I propose that we should start using "subnatural" as a word to describe God beliefs, to distinguish them from other woo beliefs about ghosts and such...

 

[Trent Wray]

Please stop using this word, I find it really really really really annoying.

What you mean is "regardless" or "irrespective".

"Irregardless" is just wrong.

Holy $h!t it really is a controversial "word" isn't it ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

I'll resist making an asinine joke in response ... but I think I now understand what others must feel like when they are smacking their gum loudly around me or chewing their food to where I can hear them in the next room ... and I actually ask them to stop doing it, even if I don't know them that well

 

[Brainache]

Holy $h!t it really is a controversial "word" isn't it ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

I'll resist making an asinine joke in response ... but I think I now understand what others must feel like when they are smacking their gum loudly around me or chewing their food to where I can hear them in the next room ... and I actually ask them to stop doing it, even if I don't know them that well

Yeah. I meant no offense, that word actually evokes a physical response in me. I know it is a trivial and pedantic point, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Sorry.

 

[westprog]

Heh. "What should we value?" is an example of a question that cannot be answered definitively. "Promoting which values would best lead us to our goal, if our end goal is x?" is a question that could be answered definitely, potentially. "What values are we more likely to value, given specific genetics and specific environmental exposure?" is a question that could be answered definitively. "What should we do?" is a question that cannot be answered definitively. "What is or are the best courses of action if we want to accomplish x?" is a question that could potentially be answered definitively. Going back from there, how do we determine what x is, in the first place? If there's a definitive answer, keep going back. Eventually, you'll get to a value judgement. Science, specifically, doesn't deal with what values we should choose, just what value judgements we should make if we want to do something.

The above is obviously, rationally true. It's highly irrational to suppose that one can get by on rationality alone.

 

[westprog]

And you would be completely wrong to view that as simpler. There is a hidden assumption in the simplicity of Goddidit -- positing a supernatural realm in addition to a natural realm as opposed to a natural realm alone indicates reliance on substance dualism.

Only if you start with materialism as your base assumption. There's no need for dualism if you start with the supernatural and proceed from there.

 

[Brainache]

Only if you start with materialism as your base assumption. There's no need for dualism if you start with the supernatural and proceed from there.

What? Start with the supernatural and proceed to where?

I was under the impression that progress can only be made by disregarding the supernatural altogether.

 

[Trent Wray]

Yeah. I meant no offense, that word actually evokes a physical response in me. I know it is a trivial and pedantic point, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Sorry.

No worries .... I brought up the gum smacking/chewing food loudly bit because it does something similar to me .... it literally provokes a physical response in me and I'll even eat in another room if the people around me don't respect that. I know it's "my issue" and not theirs, but when they respect it, it makes all the difference in the world to my enjoyment of something as simple as getting to eat with them

I'll try to remember not to use that word