Religion and Science

[Received]

We often say that science is all about falsifiability: if a hypothesis can't be revealed to be false, it can't be a scientific hypothesis. We speak of religion as not being falsifiable, since is involves God stuff that's all metaphysical and stuff.

But I contend that, if you assume that religion and science complement one another, this makes religion also falsifiable to some point, in that science can be used to point out which religious theories can't be the case (which are falsified). The easiest example is creationism, which can't be true because of the fossil record, the tight reasoning of speciation, and carbon dating.

But pay attention to the italicized part above. It's almost an accepted conclusion for atheism to think that science and religion can't by definition work together. To me, this reflects a fundamentalist atheism: an atheism that thinks all religion is fundamentalist or at least very conservative. The other mistake is in conflating science with scientism, or the belief that science is the limitation of truth, or that only facts are true, obviously a self-negating statement.

So, to me, if you're really down with science (and not scientism), and not down with Biblical literalism, you can have the best of both worlds. Cake without the calories.

 

[Resha Caner]

We often say that science is all about falsifiability: if a hypothesis can't be revealed to be false, it can't be a scientific hypothesis. We speak of religion as not being falsifiable, since is involves God stuff that's all metaphysical and stuff.

But I contend that, if you assume that religion and science complement one another, this makes religion also falsifiable to some point, in that science can be used to point out which religious theories can't be the case (which are falsified). The easiest example is creationism, which can't be true because of the fossil record, the tight reasoning of speciation, and carbon dating.

But pay attention to the italicized part above. It's almost an accepted conclusion for atheism to think that science and religion can't by definition work together. To me, this reflects a fundamentalist atheism: an atheism that thinks all religion is fundamentalist or at least very conservative. The other mistake is in conflating science with scientism, or the belief that science is the limitation of truth, or that only facts are true, obviously a self-negating statement.

So, to me, if you're really down with science (and not scientism), and not down with Biblical literalism, you can have the best of both worlds. Cake without the calories.

Well, per the other thread on philosophical starting points, I happen to think they are largely incompatible because one is based on revelation and the other on investigation.

I don't really see creationism as a "religion", but as an attempt to use science to justify a particular religous viewpoint. So, there are some places where the two play in the same sphere (the nonoverlapping magesteria of Gould doesn't work), but they are two very different ways of relating.

 

[Received]

Well, per the other thread on philosophical starting points, I happen to think they are largely incompatible because one is based on revelation and the other on investigation.

I don't really see creationism as a "religion", but as an attempt to use science to justify a particular religous viewpoint. So, there are some places where the two play in the same sphere (the nonoverlapping magesteria of Gould doesn't work), but they are two very different ways of relating.

Okay, good point. But I wonder if revelation stands for those particular instances which science (because it works with generalization and predictability) can't work with, and is therefore incommensurate with. God breaks through the universe to help me find a job. That can't be generalized at all, therefore there is no contradiction.

 

[True Scotsman]

We often say that science is all about falsifiability: if a hypothesis can't be revealed to be false, it can't be a scientific hypothesis. We speak of religion as not being falsifiable, since is involves God stuff that's all metaphysical and stuff.

But I contend that, if you assume that religion and science complement one another, this makes religion also falsifiable to some point, in that science can be used to point out which religious theories can't be the case (which are falsified). The easiest example is creationism, which can't be true because of the fossil record, the tight reasoning of speciation, and carbon dating.

But pay attention to the italicized part above. It's almost an accepted conclusion for atheism to think that science and religion can't by definition work together. To me, this reflects a fundamentalist atheism: an atheism that thinks all religion is fundamentalist or at least very conservative. The other mistake is in conflating science with scientism, or the belief that science is the limitation of truth, or that only facts are true, obviously a self-negating statement.

So, to me, if you're really down with science (and not scientism), and not down with Biblical literalism, you can have the best of both worlds. Cake without the calories.

I don't assume that science and religion compliment each other because they are objectively opposite. If science operated on faith as religion does then there would be no need to do observations and experiments because scientist could sit in an arm chair and imagine an answer to questions about nature and then call it a days work.

 

[Received]

I don't assume that science and religion compliment each other because they are objectively opposite. If science operated on faith as religion does then there would be no need to do observations and experiments because scientist could sit in an arm chair and imagine an answer to questions about nature and then call it a days work.

It's precisely because they're opposite in this sense that they work together. Religion is all about revealed truth or faith, but many times you can't really know for sure if a certain so-called truth is really a truth. In comes science to make a claim about something, like pointing out how all thinking is inherent to the brain. Then I'm able to modify my previous belief that only the soul, rather than the body, is about thinking.

Religion uses science to blot out any religious ideas that can't be the case because of scientific revelation.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is a truism that many scientists are theists, so clearly religion and science can't be incompatible in principle. Either that, or as the second half of the Stephen Jay Gould quote has it, half of his colleagues must have been incredibly stupid.

 

[Resha Caner]

But I wonder if revelation stands for those particular instances which science (because it works with generalization and predictability) can't work with, and is therefore incommensurate with.

This is similar to the nonoverlapping magesteria, which I reject. I wrestled with this regarding life origins for a time. I believe God created life, so it wouldn't surprise me if his methods are beyond our understanding - beyond our ability to describe (in scientific terms). At the same time, any physical thing God does leaves behind a trace. I don't see that God has forbidden us to study those traces and put hypotheses to them about what some of those processes might have been.

Therefore, I'm not sure one can say they are incommensurate. Rather, one simply needs to accept that "truth" will never be achieved (or at least one can't know it's the truth) apart from revelation.

... there is no contradiction.

I think this is a different statement than saying they complement each other. It is more of a truth statement: If there is absolute truth, then both science and religion (if they are feasible processes, even if different) should converge on the same thing.

That is basically true, but one must remember that they may not start from truth, so there will be some conflict along the way ... and yes, I am saying that religion doesn't always start from truth. I say that because religion is often a human endeavor, just like science.

 

[Received]

It is a truism that many scientists are theists, so clearly religion and science can't be incompatible in principle. Either that, or as the second half of the Stephen Jay Gould quote has it, half of his colleagues must have been incredibly stupid.

Gould was something else. I guess I'd say that religion and science aren't just NOMA, but complementary NOMA, if that makes sense.

 

[lesliedellow]

because scientist could sit in an arm chair and imagine an answer to questions about nature and then call it a days work.

One of the incredible things about science is that somebody can sit in his armchair all day, pull something like the Shrodinger Wave Equation out of his head, and then have it correspond with reality.

 

[Strivax]

OK, so there is the idea of God, and there is religion. We know they are different because the idea of God can and has spawned multiple religions, often mutually exclusive.

I don't think the idea of God is either falsifiable or verifiable. In that sense, the idea of God is, I agree, unscientific. That along with conceptions of God as omni-present, omni-scient, omni-potent, omni-benevolent, or, as philosophers say, omni-max.

But I do think religions are falsifible. In this way. If a religion thinks that God is maxed out goodness, and most theist religions would, then God must work towards our best interests. So, if that religion clearly works against our individual and/or collective best interests, then, to say the least, that religion has some explaining to do. And science, pure, applied, and social, along with metaphysical philosophy, has a lot to say about what our best interests actually might be.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if you assume that religion and science complement one another.

What would be the basis or justification for that assumption?

 

[lesliedellow]

What would be the basis or justification for that assumption?

I can't claim to have originated this analogy; it comes from a theoretical physicist:

If the kettle is boiling, I can ask why. One answer is that the exothermic reaction between methane and the oxygen in the atmosphere is heating the water. Another answer is that the kettle is boiling because I want to make a cup of tea. I do not have to chose between those two explanations, because they are complementary. Of course, the answers have to be consonant with one another. If I offered my intention of making a cup of tea as an explanation for my putting the kettle in the fridge, you would think it was a bit odd.

 

[Resha Caner]

If I offered my intention of making a cup of tea as an explanation for my putting the kettle in the fridge, you would think it was a bit odd.

Except that some people drink iced tea. This can be very problematic in these discussions.

Suddenly you have HotTeaDrinker claiming ColdTeaDrinker is an idiot because his science for making tea is all wrong ... when in fact it isn't. Or HotTeaDrinker demands "evidence" that tea can be cold when his definition of tea assumes elevated temperatures. etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

 

[bhsmte]

We often say that science is all about falsifiability: if a hypothesis can't be revealed to be false, it can't be a scientific hypothesis. We speak of religion as not being falsifiable, since is involves God stuff that's all metaphysical and stuff.

But I contend that, if you assume that religion and science complement one another, this makes religion also falsifiable to some point, in that science can be used to point out which religious theories can't be the case (which are falsified). The easiest example is creationism, which can't be true because of the fossil record, the tight reasoning of speciation, and carbon dating.

But pay attention to the italicized part above. It's almost an accepted conclusion for atheism to think that science and religion can't by definition work together. To me, this reflects a fundamentalist atheism: an atheism that thinks all religion is fundamentalist or at least very conservative. The other mistake is in conflating science with scientism, or the belief that science is the limitation of truth, or that only facts are true, obviously a self-negating statement.

So, to me, if you're really down with science (and not scientism), and not down with Biblical literalism, you can have the best of both worlds. Cake without the calories.

To me at least, it is obvious, that religion and science can work together and work together quite well. It is true, that scientists typically believe in a God, at a much lower rate than the general population, but you still have 40% of high level scientists that believe in a God and they can reconcile the two quite well. I'm not so sure they compliment each other, but they can exist together, with the right frame of mind.

As people acknowledge scientific evidence that shows that something certainly has an extremely high probability of being true; (evolution, age of the universe and earth etc.), they are able to accept these realities, while still being able to make their religion or faith work. The trouble begins, when you have extremes; all scientific evidence that goes against scripture must be false or, God has no chance of existing because science has proven the scripture to be false.

Religious faith is a tool and I believe a psychologically driven tool that some use to improve their life and to have hope. Some use it well, some don't. To use an analogy, I played baseball through college and every time I came up to bat, I had to go through a routine to prepare myself for the at bat. If I didn't do something, or wasn't allowed the time to do something, I didn't feel comfortable with myself and felt out of sync. It was a psychological process I was putting myself through that worked for me, and I see religion as something similar, to those who use it in a positive way.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

What would be the basis or justification for that assumption?

Well, baring a solipsist hall of mirrors, there is only One reality: Science is the objective exploration of reality, religion is the subjective. Right brain, left brain.

 

[Received]

To me at least, it is obvious, that religion and science can work together and work together quite well. It is true, that scientists typically believe in a God, at a much lower rate than the general population, but you still have 40% of high level scientists that believe in a God and they can reconcile the two quite well. I'm not so sure they compliment each other, but they can exist together, with the right frame of mind.

And the man of science, as Einstein said, "is a poor philosopher." My guess is that a disproportionate number of scientists don't believe in God because 1) the theism they're presented with just isn't intellectually rigorous at all, and 2) because they hold to scientism.

Religious faith is a tool and I believe a psychologically driven tool that some use to improve their life and to have hope. Some use it well, some don't. To use an analogy, I played baseball through college and every time I came up to bat, I had to go through a routine to prepare myself for the at bat. If I didn't do something, or wasn't allowed the time to do something, I didn't feel comfortable with myself and felt out of sync. It was a psychological process I was putting myself through that worked for me, and I see religion as something similar, to those who use it in a positive way.

In a sense, all truth is a tool: we either use it to make our lives better either by manipulating things through it, or we associate being in the right with being happy. There are clear dopamine fixes that happen when we learn something. Boom.

 

[bhsmte]

And the man of science, as Einstein said, "is a poor philosopher." My guess is that a disproportionate number of scientists don't believe in God because 1) the theism they're presented with just isn't intellectually rigorous at all, and 2) because they hold to scientism.



In a sense, all truth is a tool: we either use it to make our lives better either by manipulating things through it, or we associate being in the right with being happy. There are clear dopamine fixes that happen when we learn something. Boom.

Anyone who is a scientist, was likely drawn to that profession because of how they think and science was a good fit for them. Considering this, scientists are likely to find any type of theological belief, as not very rigorous and when they look at all the other options that man has developed over time, they tend to see it as different people's attempts to explain a God and likely don't put much credence to it. Believing there may be a higher power (some sort of God) is something they can reconcile with their type of thinking, then they can with any specific type of theology.

Similar to Einstein's position; belief in personal Gods he considered childish, but he did put some credence into a universal God, who did not interact with people's lives.

 

[Received]

Anyone who is a scientist, was likely drawn to that profession because of how they think and science was a good fit for them. Considering this, scientists are likely to find any type of theological belief, as not very rigorous and when they look at all the other options that man has developed over time, they tend to see it as different people's attempts to explain a God and likely don't put much credence to it. Believing there may be a higher power (some sort of God) is something they can reconcile with their type of thinking, then they can with any specific type of theology.

Similar to Einstein's position; belief in personal Gods he considered childish, but he did put some credence into a universal God, who did not interact with people's lives.

Thing is, I don't know a physicist personally or otherwise who doesn't speak with wonder and almost a mystique about the universe. Which is pretty much pantheism without admitting the label. You can't get away from theism that easily, but it's much easier to earn the label of atheist but still act like a pantheist by semi- or fully personifying the universe.

 

[Resha Caner]

Thing is, I don't know a physicist personally or otherwise who doesn't speak with wonder and almost a mystique about the universe. Which is pretty much pantheism without admitting the label. You can't get away from theism that easily, but it's much easier to earn the label of atheist but still act like a pantheist by semi- or fully personifying the universe.

Yeah, or maybe deism rather than pantheism. But, unless they themselves acknowledge such a thing, it's not really worth accusing them of it.

 

[Received]

Yeah, or maybe deism rather than pantheism. But, unless they themselves acknowledge such a thing, it's not really worth accusing them of it.

To some degree. It it walks like a Pantheist and talks like a Pantheist...then it doesn't matter if it denies being a Pantheist. I think pointing out this discrepancy in self-identity and behavior would be helpful in giving them a real idea of what full-blown atheism looks like. Which would arguably help people stop overidealizing atheism and stepping on theism. I agree with your probable implicit point that this wouldn't do any point, given that they're so emotionally conditioned against theism that any tinge of a hint of a fraction of a possibility of being associated with it would be met with vomit and red faces.