On Science and Religion
On Science and Religion
May 28This is being posted as my response to the Compatibility of Science and Religion debate.
People always argue that science and religion do not deal with the same phenomena, or the same aspects of human life. Mang had already done so so in this debate:
“Religion and science fulfill different aspects of human needs. In that sense they are orthogonal or at least do not occupy the same space or set.” – Mang
I disagree with this point entirely. Religion makes scientific claims: miracles, prayer, virgin birth are examples. These are ideas at odds with science and if you take them literally then you must rationalise them as either being metaphors or being against physics or biology. If they are metaphors then your religion is dealt a blow (virgin birth, for example). If they go against physics then they directly contradict science and you have some cognitive dissonance going on!
Religions generally all believe that there is a God or collection of gods in charge of the universe. This is a hypothesis that can be tested in science. If God is ‘up there’ interfering with our daily lives then we should be able to test that. If God set the universe in motion then we will be able to test that at some later time in future history.
You might argue that God is ‘outside testing’. This is surely incorrect since God must act upon things to make things happen. Prayer for example, can be tested and in fact has been. This leads me another point, which is that religion is willing to use science to prove itself.
The idea that religion and science do not overlap in our lives is easily bunked by the existence of prayer experiments, but also by the turin shroud, for example. If someone dug up the body of Jesus would religion back off saying ‘nothing to do with us’? If the prayer experiments had proved that prayer works (they didn’t by the way), then it would have been held aloft as proof of religion working. Rather what we actually have are religious people trying to explain why the experiments wouldn’t work.
Another point to tackle is a response to part of Todd’s comment.
“In many ways religion and science are quite similar: they each define a human culture, they each espouse a certain orthodoxy among adherents, they each inspire passion and sometimes ill feelings between practitioners who don’t operate the same way, they each reveal the best and the worst of human beings.” – Todd
This is true of all human endeavours. It is not something special about science or about religion that creates this similarly, it is something about people. Politics, social clubs, theatre groups, office staff, classrooms and even blogs all have different styles of operation with in-groups and out-groups.
It doesn’t achieve anything to try to say that science is just like religion based on the fact that both operate in similar social ways. They are innately different.
So to finish (for now) I would like to put to it you all that science and religion are incompatible as world views. In our everyday lives, most of us only dabble in the shallow end of theology or of science, never finding a need to really decide between religion and science. I think though, that when faced with the deep questions, you have to choose. Trying to fit both into your world, won’t work in the end. If it seems to be working, then you haven’t fully understood at least one of them.
I leave you with a cartoon spotted on Digg recently:
I am so with you, that I really don’t have anything to add. Good post, we need to make people realize that religion and science really cannot coexist.
“Religion makes scientific claims: miracles, prayer, virgin birth are examples.”
Speaking as a religious person, I don’t agree. It may be that miracles are used in a rational way as evidence for sainthood. Prayer is a dialogue between God and a person. The virgin birth is a non-scientific (in that it cannot be verified) truth (in the sense that it reveals something deeper about God or the Christian faith).
It is true that other religious believers approach these things with a strong dose of rationality, that doesn’t make it a scientific endeavor. Some religionists indeed do try to use science to prove themselves. Am I permitted to dissent from them? In fact, I think the effort to quantify and prove faith cheapens the experience and the tradition of religion.
“I would like to put to it you all that science and religion are incompatible as world views.”
I believe you believe this, Rob, but I think this is a very subjective viewpoint. I think a flawed approach to religion will lead a person to problems in science. I think an attempt to expand science beyond the boundaries of inquiry, hypothesis, experimentation, and the other traditions of the rational mind might get someone into trouble with religion. Human beings do not have a perfect grasp of either. It is hard not to find people who mix bad religion and poor science. But I’ve never found science and religion to be in conflict, and I have training in both disciplines.
I think the nugget of my point is this:
When I say that virgin birth is a scientific claim, I mean that it is an event which is regulated by scientific processes. Just because it was so long ago that no evidence can now be found for it, does not mean it is not a hypothetically testable event. Science says that such an event is all but impossible (unless Mary was a self-fertilising hermaphrodite, which takes away from the holiness somewhat), and so if it did happen then it contradicts known science.
A person holding a scientific world view cannot believe that the immaculate conception actually happened without strong evidence, of which there is none. Simply believing it because you are told that it happened is not rational. If the Bible told of Jesus’ talking monkey, Geoff, would that be believed as well?
This is the crux of my point: at some level the two ways of learning about the world clash. At the extreme, you cannot be rigorously scientific and ardently religious and not come into conflict with yourself. I would argue that this applies to even moderately religious and simply rational people if they get down to the nitty-gritty of their beliefs.
@Rob – I really don’t want to get into a long protracted philosophical debate on this topic. But I would like to point out a few things.
It seems to me that you are using a very narrow definition of religion or a subset of religions (specifically western ones) and that you are assuming some of their positions on the part of a broader set. The full spectrum of organized religions is broader than you describe. And the full spectrum of what counts for religious and spiritual belief is even broader.
It was for these reasons that led me to initially say that I was not sure the question you posed was well defined. Not specific enough or well bounded. That was my main point.
If you are talking about the Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, well I’m not on with that and I agree there is a conflict. For those that have rigid and literal positions, you have made a point.
For others, and there are many, having more flexible and metaphorical beliefs is not a weakness for them.
All or nothing views can be very dangerous in any human endeavor. That leads to the fallacy that there is a one true path. It leads to intolerance and close-mindedness. Religions as a long standing human endeavor have had more than their share of this historically. It ranges from the merely odd to the tragic. I alluded to some of this in my earlier post. And I for one cannot accept this kind of dangerous, inflexible, and intolerant thinking. But this kind of black and white thinking is not exclusive to religion.
Many people have misguided approaches to aspects of life. Both science and religion have their place and value, but overextending either can lead to problems.
Trying to prove religious beliefs using science is simply misguided. Science can disprove but not prove. Doubt can be narrowed at best. But not removed. Forgeries can be detected. As can misinterpreted works of art.
I maintain there is middle ground. You may try and dismiss people in the middle ground as being wishy-washy or uncommitted. Perhaps some are. Perhaps some haven’t thought about it. Others have. Living in the middle ground means dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity; balancing and rebalancing theories, facts, experience, and beliefs. It means maintaining an open mind, heart, and spirit. It requires one to think about the inherent conflicts in human systems. It requires that we take the good and valuable forward and leave the damaging behind.
I’m not sure if you don’t believe there is a middle ground (or other approaches) or if you didn’t consider them.
I hope I have made my point. If not we will just have to agree to disagree.
I will construct a short response to this. I am really enjoying this bloggy debate by the way! Thanks for contributing.
I’ll keep this short.
Todd and I are obviously, if not on the same page, at least in adjacent chapters.
I think I see some common ground emerging. But perhaps I’m just being optimistic.
BTW. There was a time when Todd and I would probably have been burned at the stake for keeping such views.
Also, there is an interesting post over at BA http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/05/28/did-religion-evolve/
There was also Ian O’Neill’s comments over on the original post: http://orbitingfrog.com/blog/2008/05/23/the-great-debate-the-compatibility-of-science-and-religion/
Another in the same part of the book.
Rob, thanks for the stimulating discussion.
“When I say that virgin birth is a scientific claim, I mean that it is an event which is regulated by scientific processes.”
The belief in the virgin birth predates the modern scientific method. It is a doctrine of Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans (I believe) that communicates a truth of faith, something distinct from a rational truth. It aligns with a more ancient, pre-Renaissance notion of truth.
Trying to pin it down is sort of like trying to image an electron. The real truth of it is the example of the Virgin Mary’s “yes” to God, and God’s intervening grace. The doctrine is meant not to be a scientific curiosity, although you can get some excellent cocktail conversation from it. The virgin birth is really more about the truth of the Christian belief system: rely on God, accept God’s challenges with a “yes,” and be open to God’s grace, as you see it in your life.
“If the Bible told of Jesus’ talking monkey, Geoff, would that be believed as well?”
If it had something more to say than just a story about a miraculous animal, it might. Other stories about Jesus circulated that didn’t make the Bible: the boy Jesus making sparrows from mud, for example. Aside from a tale of a casual miracle, they didn’t add anything to the core of Christian belief. Again, more cocktail conversation, but very milquetoast on relevance for faith.
“This is the crux of my point: at some level the two ways of learning about the world clash.”
This would be my suggestion: consider looking at the world as an oyster (if you will) that responds to more than one way of interaction. In my relationship with my wife, I treat her sometimes as a lover, sometimes as a partner in parenting or finances or such, sometimes as a friend–where we started out long ago.
Some of these functions are more rational, and some are more affective, and a few are even spiritual. The truth of our relationship happens on many levels. There is a scientific reason why we were unable to conceive a child. Perhaps there are psychological reasons we were drawn together as friends, and later as marriage partners. If I were to dwell excessively on the rational side of my relationship, I would miss other truths.
It’s sort of like trying to pin down the elusive electron. If the only tool in our kit is detecting waves, we’ll miss a lot. Life strikes me as infinitely more complex than a single electron. It strikes me that science and religion both have their hands more than full if we’re using them as a means of understanding.
It would be interesting if someone with knowledge of eastern religions could comment.