"Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Revalatory Nature of Faith?"

[Labyrinth]

A while back I was introduced to an online journal of thought called The Edge [http://edge.org/] and their most recent front-line material is about Science and Faith.

This is a longstanding argument on Escapist. We've got both religious members and staunch atheists who get along well enough until the chips are down. As one of the latter, I'm inclined towards a divide between Science and Faith. I don't give a damn if you have Faith, just so long as it doesn't interfere with my Science.

Below are the comments on this [http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html#rc] straight from the website. I'd like your views as well.

By Jerry A. Coyne [http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/coyne.html] writer of the reference article [http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472] which was up for discussion said in his work:

This [science v religion] disharmony is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence--the existence of religious scientists--is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith. Now Darwin Year is upon us, and we can expect more books like those by Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson. Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.

Howard Gardener [http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/gardner.html]:

Of course, if you believe in the scientific method and the scientific enterprise, you will have little patience for belief in revelation (whatever that is). Still, all of us, even the most extreme rationalists, harbor contradictory beliefs in our minds and we somehow muddle through. For me, the important line in the sand is not between those who believe in religion/God and those who don't; it is between those who are tolerant of others' beliefs, so long as they don't interfere with one's own belief system, and those who will not tolerate those whose belief system is fundamentally different. In other words, I'll settle for mutual tolerance, though I prefer mutual respect.. And now that we at last have a president who is both religious and truly tolerant, respectful, ecumenical, inclusionary - let's mute the religious wars for awhile and say a prayer (sic) of thanks.'

Daniel Everett [http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/everett.html]:

Religion is philosophically incompatible with science. Open inquiry that allows the chips to fall where they may is incompatible with both the idea of 'god's revelation of truth' and religious hierarchies governing knowledge and its dissemination. I am an atheist. I believe that theology, which I hold an undergraduate degree in, is a waste of time.

However, none of this frees science from the obligation of dialog with religious people. Scientists belong to societies. No one practices science in a vacuum, culturally, financially or, even, religiously. It is important to maintain respectful dialog on what the proper relationship of science is to religion if for no other reason than the fact that the National Science Foundation is hugely subsidized by the taxes of religious people. This of course does not give taxpayers veto power over science, but it does mean that scientists neither can nor should regard religion as utterly irrelevant to their practice. A Jamesian pragmatist might claim that science is a societal activity that has an obligation to provide useful results to society, however broadly 'useful' is defined - the recognition of the obligation to the supporters of science is essential.

While science should not pretend that revelation has anything to offer us, it should not forget that it can manifest its own forms of 'revelation'. When scientists believe that they are marching towards Truth in some platonic sense, they are behaving religiously, not scientifically. The belief in Truth, as Rorty cautioned, can become the scientist's god and when it does it involves no less superstition than any other god. And many scientists share a belief in oracles, special people whose words are somehow more valuable and more likely to reflect Truth than that of other people's.

Science is a messy business conducted in messy places. Scientists are evolved hominids that have only used toilet paper for a brief period in their existence. Science owes its existence, health and results to the society that supports it. Scientists are not monks, after all, to be freed from worldly constraints for contemplation of their god, Truth. Their patrons include their opponents in modern societies. They must engage in dialog and not act as though only the true believers in science are worthy of dialog. No matter what jokes we tell over cocktails.

The upshot is although religion ought not to be causally implicated in the practice of science, any more than politics, religious people have a right to demand that scientists treat them with respect and that scientists are careful to construct their own 'canopy of epistemic humility', in the terms of historian of religion Mark Noll.

Many others commented, and I'd suggest you go and read both the comments made and the original article. They are quite thought provoking.

My response to both is that I am inclined to agree with the opinions of Everett. While the processes of science and religion, like state and religion, need to be held separate, science remains affected by the nature of religion. This is reflected in both the way that funding for science is provided by benefactors and how the results of it are received. Coyne makes note of the differences in faith between somewhere such as the UK, which has statistically stronger ties to science than the US.

The drywall between something such as monothestic religion and Darwinian theories is backed up by, in my view, the presumption on behalf of humans that we are the natural end for evolution [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.84999]. That it has been one long path to us. I've never held to that because it's just the same as me presuming that I am so much better than my parents just because I'm one generation after them.

As suggested in Bill Bryson's A Short History Of Nearly Everything this is a common belief too, even among scientists. The parallels between this particular mode of thought and religious doctrine stating that God is there for the best interests in humanity is striking. We are no more the "Chosen people" and "End product" of evolution than we are the same of the tinkering of a God. We are but one step in the evolutionary ladder which stretches on until all of our descendent are dead and buried, and at last the human genome dries out and dies. That would be the end of the evolutionary process. In much the same way as I look disdainfully on the arrogance which has supposed that we are the "chosen people", I look upon the beliefs held by religions.

If we take Faith to be the belief in the existence of something we cannot prove, then I see no reason to have it. Because of my scientific nature, I cannot reconcile such a thing with my need for evidence and reasonable support. In this a primary difference between Science and Religion is found.

Science, when it theorises that it has something which may exist but there is no proof for yet, goes out and conducts experiments. The Hadron Collider is a prime example of this, built to find out if there is a theorised Higgs boson. I have yet to see the same level of scrutiny being put amongst religious circles to whether their God/s exist. They have Faith, ergo they do not need to examine it apparently.

Another point raised in a later comment was that many people hold to their beliefs as a matter of pride. They may well feel that, having held them as long as they have, it would be an admittance of utter stupidity and loss of faith to say "Well, after much thought, I've decided that I was wrong." This, I imagine, would be a particular problem amongst highly religious peers who may then seek to ostracise the person in question due to their sudden crisis of faith. It becomes a social defence mechanism along with a matter of pride in such circumstances.

Anyway, I think I've prattled long enough. Do share your thoughts, and I would prefer that you read both article and comments. They are biased against religion in many ways, this is true (as am I, surprise surprise) but I look forward to the contribution of people who hold both to their beliefs and to science.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

But their main evidence--the existence of religious scientists--is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Frankly, it is hard to take that article with a grain of salt as a result of such claims.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Science_and_Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religion

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5215

http://www.thermalphysics.org/planck/planckessey.html

Now Darwin Year is upon us, and we can expect more books like those by Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson. Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.

There is no "reconciliation" necessary. Science and religion don't overlap, not at all. If you want to explain the world around you and need the ability to make useful predictions, then science is what you are looking for. If you are looking for spiritual and moral direction, or are looking for answers "why" rather than "how", science has nothing to say about that.

This only becomes a problem when you get asshole religious fanatics who seek to enforce their dogma on the rest of the human population. People who insist gays are deviant sinners or that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools.

By the exact same token, it becomes a problem when you get atheists insisting that merely because things can't be proved to *their* satisfaction, it can't be allowed to exist, and that religion should be wiped away from humanitys future. The worst thing is that they claim they are doing it because they don't like religious people forcing their views on others... this to me is a case of the dog calling the monkey a hairy arse.

The only overlap that occurs is when one side tries to shove their shit down the other sides throat.

Both sides are equally bigoted, and irritating, and I really do think both sides should gather to discuss this matter away from me. On a volcano somewhere.

 

[hypothetical fact]

Hmm, can science and religion just get along, the results of every thread on the topic since the dawn of the internet says no.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

Science and religion can work together...but in order for that to happen one or the other has to be compromised on...

When that happens - choose science, it's more concrete

And now I will leave this thread for the flamers and the sensible who get caught up in the carnage and refuse to not reply.

 

[The Wooster]

Both sides are equally bigoted, and irritating, and I really do think both sides should gather to discuss this matter away from me. On a volcano somewhere.

Agreed. And why is it that the people arguing for Science always talk like tossers trying to win a 'longest sentence' competition?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Religion is a terrible thing that hinders our development as a species. Unfortunately for some reason to be religious and pious is seen as a good thing in most countries of the world. Religion allows people to discount facts in favour of what they want to be true which makes everyone dumber. In all religion places an inordinate amount of power in the hands of people who are sponges on the rest of society.

However that is just religion in the organised sense. While the scientific method must take precedence over everything else and the words ?prove it? should be taught to every child, I also think there is a place for spirituality or at least morality. However I think that is innate in most people most people so we don?t need some fairytales masquerading as reality to scare us into keeping in line.

As far as I am concerned Religion is used to divide people and the arguments that revolve around religion remind me of the ?My Dad could beat up your Dad? arguments of the Playground. They add nothing to human understanding and have little relevance in the real world.

Then again a culture devoted completely to science would be very cold, indeed.

 

[zen5887]

I believe in god and science.. Whats the big deal? Why can't people belive in a higher being as well as gravity, protons and evolution.. Okay maybe the last one is a bit tricky but still. Im on the "god made the apes who then evolved into humans" side of the playing feild. A good place to be methinks.

 

[Ezekel]

Science deals with they physical universe, and how it works. Religion deals with the non physical universe. There is no contradiction in either as each deal with different realms of reality.

If you want to throw evolution in there, well first you have to show how it is possible for ooze to form life, then explain where that ooze came from. Then explain by what process evolution happens, and I mean macro evolution not micro.

Naturally this leaves most science alone, theory of relativity, gravity, electricity, mathematics pretty much any science that does not deal with the origin of life is completely valid and untouchable by religion. Just as science cannot in any way tell somebody what morality is, religion cannot dictate how the physical realm works.

 

[Zac_Dai]

If I have to be honest, living in Britain I've never really seen much resistance to science from religious circles so I've never really thought about there being a struggle between the two or a need for them to reconcile.

But I do agree some take aspects of science and turn it into a type of faith like evolution, in this I mean people who support eugenics or other crap that people came up with in the other thread.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I see where the above poster is coming from God can fit into Science (it should never be the other way around). However the total lack of evidence for God makes it just a belief and not fact. I think we should only really be concerned with what we can see and leave the fiction up to writers.

 

[DrunkenKitty]

Science has clashed with religion primarily because a certain lack of flexibility in religious beliefs.

Started with "The sun revolves around the earth." Next was was "The earth is flat." Now it's creationism.

I don't see why more Christians don't share the view that God's intention was evolution.

To be fair though, I'm not 100% sure about evolution. It's a theory and it explains a lot, so it's great to build more theories upon it, but I feel like there's some big pieces of the puzzle missing. It seems like every year, things we were 100% sure about in the world of astronomy and physics are disproved. I think evolution just adds a comfortable level of certainly to a huge gray area that would otherwise be scary to the science minded.

 

[Ezekel]

I see where the above poster is coming from God can fit into Science (it should never be the other way around). However the total lack of evidence for God makes it just a belief and not fact. I think we should only really be concerned with what we can see and leave the fiction up to writers.

Just because you do not see or accept the existence of God does not mean that he does not exist. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of some higher power. Is there absolute proof, no, but that does not make mine or anyone else faith illegitimate or fictitious.

 

[Fire Daemon]

I have a rather strange belief that God is science. If a scientist wants to say that the big bang created the universe and a Christian wants to say God created the Universe then the Big bang is God. If a scientist wants to say that a long like of Evolution created mankind while a Christian would say that God created mankind then Evolution is God. Its really just name swapping but that's my views on religion.

Everyone thinks I'm a nutter when I tell them that though. Okay Doctor I'll get back in my vest, I just want to finish this post.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Hmm, can science and religion just get along, the results of every thread on the topic since the dawn of the internet says no.

Science and religion get along fine.

Obstinate, dogmatic and frankly dumb religious fundamentalists will never get along with arrogant, bigoted and frankly moronic atheist fanatics.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

One concept I've absolutely never understood is the outlook of non-religious types on religious individuals. I've actually been treated differently after I've informed Escapists that I'm Christian. Personally, I think religious belief (or lack thereof) should not be a personal demerit on one's character. Though that's an unrelated can of worms, and a difficult article to really get into. I may have to write that at some point... But, another topic for another time.

In the topic of Empiricism Counter Revelation?, then I find in favor of Related, but Not Exclusive. I've gotten into lengthy discussions [http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/3150289086_8431f42af4_m.jpg] on this topic before, and I've been "proven incorrect," so maybe I'm the wrong person to talk to, but I feel like trying to completely isolate religion from science is an unnecessary process. Granted, Faith by definition requires the belief in something that cannot be proven (Empirically counterintuitive), but I find that trying to pretend that religious individuals disbelieve science is a ludicrous concept.

Though, in my experience, the common response to being informed that I am theologically-inclined is an immediate transfer of down-talking, as if I am but a child who will one day know better. As if I will one day stop believing in Santa Claus like the rest of society. Though I find that this tone is horribly condescending, and counter-intuitive to decent discussion. As such, perhaps I'll try to take a moment to remove my own bias and write a truly neutral response.

Theology is by definition counter Empirical Evidence at the very root, but the surface is not immediately opposed. I see no reason why The Big Bang Theory cannot be the way "God said let there be Light." Certainly not falling on the 7-day timeframe, but frames of reference could as easily be invented by later storytellers (as the Holy Bibble was once an oral tale, then transcribed by monks, then translated by monks, and retranslated by later generations). After all, a complete lack of Sun and Earth would make our concept of time (24 hour days, 7 day weeks, 12 month years, and so on). So, the constant theological "evidence" versus "Empirical theory" could perhaps have been as much an editorial error as it could be a non-science-based rationale by translators and storytellers.

As for the examination of the Higgs Particle versus the Existence of God, it's a difficult comparison to make. Faith, for one point, simply is. One cannot verify Faith, for then it would not be Faith any longer. But it goes just beyond definition of the word. If I were to ask any of you if you have a brain, you would say Yes. You don't need a MRI, you simply know you have a brain. Do you have a cranium? Yes. When you turn the ignition on your car, the will the engine run? People have Faith in all sorts of things, those who are religious simply have Faith that God exists. As LaCoil said, we do not need evidence, we have Faith. I have five fingers, my avatar has a red tie, and God exists. It's no more difficult a question than whether or not the sky exists.

Any discussion on Science and Religion need not be an argument. Although anyone who believes strongly in anything will be just as argumentative about anything, so the heated nature of the discussions does not surprise me. There are groups of theologians who are attempting to find God through science, as well as large groups who believe in both, known as "Christian Scientists."

In the end, this strikes me as a great discussion topic that will get very little great discussion. I can't help but feel that there's an unalienable bias against one party from the other, so like many other religious discussions, this one can only end in a stalemate. Religion and Science need not be separate, nor does the belief in one completely deny the other. I will just as easily admit "Evolution looks really probable, incredibly likely, and is probably as strong a theory" as I would "Hey, when God created man, who's to say he made him in the current form of man?"

In short, my answer is "Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Polytheistic Polarity-themed Gods of Druidism Based on Dungeons and Dragons?"