science and faith

Interesting article form Wall St Journal today

Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in several exciting panel discussions at the World Science Festival in New York City. But the most dramatic encounter took place at the panel strangely titled "Science, Faith and Religion." I had been conscripted to join the panel after telling one of the organizers that I saw no reason to have it. After all, there was no panel on science and astrology, or science and witchcraft. So why one on science and religion?
I ended up being one of two panelists labeled "atheists." The other was philosopher Colin McGinn. On the other side of the debate were two devoutly Catholic scientists, biologist Kenneth Miller and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno. Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn't exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn't. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God. The moderator of the session, Bill Blakemore, a reporter with some religious inclination, surprised me by bursting out in response, "Then I guess you are a rational atheist."
Our host was presumably responding to all those so-called fundamentalist atheists who have recently borne the brunt of intense attacks following the success of books like Sam Harris's "The End of Faith," and Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion."
These scientists have been castigated by believers for claiming that science is incompatible with a belief in God. On the one hand, this is a claim that appears manifestly false -- witness the two Catholic scientists on my panel. And on the other hand, the argument that science suggests God is a delusion only bolsters the view of the of the fundamentalist religious right that science is an atheist enemy that must either be vanquished or assimilated into religion.
Coincidentally, I have appeared numerous times alongside Ken Miller to defend evolutionary biology from the efforts of those on various state school boards who view evolution as the poster child for "science as the enemy." These fundamentalists are unwilling to risk the possibility that science might undermine their faith, and so they work to shield children from this knowledge at all costs. To these audiences I have argued that one does not have to be an atheist to accept evolutionary biology as a reality. And I have pointed to my friend Ken as an example.
This statement of fact appears to separate me from my other friends, Messrs. Harris and Dawkins. Yet this separation is illusory. It reflects the misperception that the recent crop of vocal atheist-scientist-writers are somehow "atheist absolutists" who remain in a "cultural and historical vacuum" -- in the words of a recent Nature magazine editorial.
But this accusation is unfair. Messrs. Harris and Dawkins are simply being honest when they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science.
J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a "god, angel, or devil" will interfere with one's experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.
Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.
While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world's organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an "atheist absolutist," a "reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions."
When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.
Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Moreover, the true believers in each of these faiths are atheists regarding the specific sacred tenets of all other faiths. Christianity rejects the proposition that the Quran contains the infallible words of the creator of the universe. Muslims and Jews reject the divinity of Jesus.
So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God, and thus to conclude that claimed miracles like the virgin birth are incompatible with our scientific understanding of nature.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that these issues are not purely academic. The current crisis in Iran has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.
Perhaps the most important contribution an honest assessment of the incompatibility between science and religious doctrine can provide is to make it starkly clear that in human affairs -- as well as in the rest of the physical world -- reason is the better guide.
Mr. Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University. His most recent book is "Hiding in the Mirror" (Viking, 2005).

Giant wall of text crits you for over 9000!

Here's the web-article. It's a little bit easier to read.
God and Science Don't Mix - WSJ.com


Interesting article, especially the part where the theists brought forward the possibility that the virgin birth event was only symbolic. Obviously it's not reconcilable with basic biology and they know it. Guess they didn't want to stoop down to the level of only saying "goddidit" or "biblesaysso".

- Ectezus

__________________
Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] (Austrian physician and pioneer psychoanalyst) said:

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."

Obviously, the Virgin Birth is incompatable with our scientific understanding of nature. It was, afterall, supposed to be a miracle. If its a miracle, it does not need (and indeed would not be expected) to be consistant with nature. I just don't see this as much of an argument against Christianity...

__________________
“The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong

"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver

"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)

Meh, fluff piece that doesn't cover anything new or noteworthy. I'm particularly irked by the fact that the title and summary doesn't follow the meat of the article:
"God and Science Don't Mix
A scientist can be a believer. But professionally, at least, he can't act like one."
But it doesn't really show any sciencey believers being fired for praying or such. It shows some scientist explaining why they're atheists and poo poos the moderate christians for understanding it's a metaphor.

Also, didn't a shark give a virgin birth somewhere recently?

Yes

"sciencey" (sic) believers?
Seriously???

__________________

Oh geez... Those employed in a scientific position or in a position that apply science who have a religious faith in some sort of deity or higher power.
Is that better for you? Or I simply could have said scientists as their religious bent is implied with the act of praying.

I take one little shortcut and the grammar police are out in force. Their gonna be the end of me.

- Yeah, maybe Maria did have the same and impregnated herself, thus giving rise a myth that still exists today.
- Either that or that virgin birth shark was also impregnated by god himself.

Take your pick.

- Ectezus

__________________
Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] (Austrian physician and pioneer psychoanalyst) said:

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."

Its little twists in grammar that turns the truth into a lie and logic into a fallacy and honesty into sludge balls.

not saying that that's what you were doing, but i have seen it done here on the forums. For example, Evolutionist. (which as a word is inherently dishonest)

dew sez...eh, fluff piece that doesn't cover anything new or noteworthy. I'm particularly irked by the fact that the title and summary doesn't follow the meat of the article:
"God and Science Don't Mix
A scientist can be a believer. But professionally, at least, he can't act like one."
But it doesn't really show any sciencey believers being fired for praying or such. It shows some scientist explaining why they're atheists and poo poos the moderate christians for understanding it's a metaphor.

Also, didn't a shark give a virgin birth somewhere recently?
qvote///////////////////////////


Hespera sez. i think that is "puff piece" and the Wall St journal doesnt do puff pieces.

Parthenogenesis occurs on some reptiles. no mammals tho.

'course, you like to believe in miracles, psychics, atlantis, ghosts etc nothing is impossible.

All sorts of different culture think / thought that among their people were those who had god father / human mother. Christians are probably relative latecomers in the field.

No no no, sorry, no offense was meant. I was just poking fun that's all.
(and it's "They're going to be...." again, j/k )

__________________