I've been somewhat remiss in posting for a few days as I've been catching up on some reading and discussing science and religion with my friends. The question that interests me is whether basic religious tenets are compatible with science, where "science" is defined as a way of knowing—a way that combines evidence and rational thinking to come up with "truths" about the universe we inhabit.
It seems obvious to me that there are some forms of deism that do not conflict with science. Is that it?1 Are there any other versions of religion that maintain an appropriate distance from science?
I'd like to hear from people who are religious but not deists. Can they give me some example of their religious claims that do not in any way conflict with science? I'm thinking specifically of those religions that promote belief in a personal God.
1. Buddhism may count if it's the form of Buddhism that doesn't believe in supernatural beings. I don't call that a religion.
23 comments :
some people use science as a religion...it's not about supernaturalism. The problem is more about narrow-mindedness and dogmatism (of any kind)
I take it you don't have an example of a religious belief that is not in conflict with science?
Larry, you're getting in the area of religious apologetics here, a complex topic full of courtier-like arguments that you probably wouldn't like reading. Apologetics would probably say that no religion (as simply stated) is compatible or incompatible with science until you get into specific, personal interpretations. Then of course, 99.99% of them are incompatible. However, there may be a tiny minority of people who have gone through enough metaphysical and philosophical gymnastics to make their faith compatible with science.
As far as religions "out of the box" (other than deism) being compatible with science - I don't know, maybe some of the lighter forms of buddhism, or any religion that deals with consciousness as a prevailing theme - AFAIK, science has figured that one out yet.
I believe that on at least the initial face of it, the Bahá'í claim to encompass "the harmony which must exist between religion and science". The wikipedia entry on "Bahá'í Faith and science" is an interesting one to browse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai_Faith_and_science It starts with "A fundamental principle of the Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá'í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict." But it quickly movevs on to add "wrinkles" to this...
I wonder if a deeper problem for religions is that by nature they seem to require at least some assertions to be made that are to be considered "fixed for all time", and the these seem to inevitably get them in trouble. For example, Bahai foundation statements include (or at least included!) belief in the 'ether' concept, which relatively shortly after formation of the religion was discarded by science.
I am not Bahai, never mind religious in any way. Someone who can speak for the Bahai might be better placed to take this further than me, but its one religion that at least claims to be compatible with science. (Whether it lives up to those claims is another issue, of course.)
Logically, denial of science is really nothing more than denial of god. The trivial argument is left to the reader.
I see may people of strong faith taking this view seriously.
There are also other eastern faiths like Taoism and Indian mysticism, and Vedanta (Erwin Schroedinger was a fan). I'm not sure whether they would count as formal religions or not. People in the West would probably regard them as mostly nonsense, but they may not be in direct conflict with science in the same way that the Abrahamic religions are.
The most respectable 'proof' for the existence of God used by the religious is the fine tuning argument.
To me it seems that it also poses a problem for them.
If all the physical constants are constrained to an incredible degree - any variation leading to the impossibility of matter as we know it existing - then surely the logical extention of this is to ask how miracles get around this problem. If a miracle occurs then would this not suggest that at least one or more of the constants must necessarily change?
And if it did change then how does matter survive?
To me it seems that the fine tuning argument simply invalidates religions that include miracles as part of their doctrine.
Martin,
I've heard theists argue that miracles shouldn't be seperated out into a different category. God is an intimate, interactive part of nature and so miracles shouldn't be seen as distinct from nature. In this way, a miracle wouldn't necessarily be bothered by fine tuning.
Religions are CLOSED sysyems.
They are based on fixed, unchanged "holy books" which CANNOT BE ALTERED.
Science is based on the INCREASING body of knowledge & experience.
Ther MUST be a conflict, at some point or another, when new information becomes available.
Actually, I think that religions are not closed systems. I have read medieval theology. In many cases it is different than the stuff christians say nowadays.
I think the nature of the change is more important. Religious systems are "assimilative"(they use assimilation, so they have the thing, what they try to proof and end result is "how this set of facts can fit in our case".) and science must have "accomodative" part(use accomodation, the wiew is altered if fact's don't fit in it) part. (falsification in extreme cases, self criticism in lesser an more common cases)
In ID that is quite clear what it is. "ID is question: if universe of part of it is intelligently designed, how we can prove it" like one finnish ID:ist is saying.)
I appreciate what g.tingey said above.
I am not a religious person (atheist) but, if I were, I imagine the process of performing "metaphysical and philosophical gymnastics" to create an agreement between my religion and science would be quite disconcerting.
From my experience, religion does not lend itself to be maleable in many respects and doctrines are passed, supposedly unchanged, from a higher power or existence.
Perhaps there are religions that exist which, if summarized by a sentence or two, are compatible with science. However, I have the feeling that, upon deeper exploration, all religions defy the basic principles of science in one way or another.
That being said, what do I know? I'm neither religious nor an expert in any field of science (architect).
Buddhism may count if it's the form of Buddhism that doesn't believe in supernatural beings. I don't call that a religion.
Dr. Moran, you recently told us that you consider Humanism a religion, yet this is a religion without god (as stated, in what I've read on the subject). If one strips the supernatural beings from Buddhism, is it still a religion or not? Is belief in the existence of supernatural beings the core criterion for determining whether a set of tenets and social behaviours counts as a religion?
Getting back to the question at hand... I can't say that I've ever met a religious belief (as described by the person holding that belief) that wasn't at least potentially in conflict with science as a way of knowing. As far as I have been able to determine, all religious beliefs eventually boil down to "knowing" something for a reason that's not rational or defensible in the face of hard logic and evidence.
Sure: the existence of a deity that is not a part of our space-time continuum (this is what Eastern Orthodox believe).
This doesn't contradict science because science laws only apply to our space-time continuum. :)
Larry, some types of deism say that there was no supernatural intervention since the origin of the physical universe. That might not conflict with your approach to scientific thought in regards to biology but it would conflict with your approach scientific thought in regards to physical cosmology. On the other hand, Eugenie Scott's approach to scientific thought has no conflict with any type of deism.
By the way, the most general meaning of deism implies that the deity never inspired humans to write a Bible while some types of deism say there was no supernatural intervention since the origin of the physical universe.
Larry, concerning your second question, nothing in Evangelical Christianity, assuming a belief in theistic evolution (which we know isn't always the case), has conflict with science in regards to Eugenie Scott's approach to scientific thought.
And Larry, AFAIK, all types of Buddhism believe that humans have a soul including existence between reincarnations while some types of Buddhism are atheistic. I still scratch my head trying to understand the merger of atheism and souls, and that religious belief goes way back.
all types of Buddhism believe that humans have a soul including existence between reincarnations while some types of Buddhism are atheistic
Science is mostly grounded in observation - i.e. "what happens when I do this?". But pragmatically, observation implies a conscious observer. Hard to do any real science without it. But what happens when you destroy this observer, or at the very least, permanently sever the observer from the observed? Is that a scientific question? Is death the ultimate scientific experiment? What happens when you die - nothing? I was dead before I was born, but that did not stop me from coming into existence. Could it happen again?
The question of a "soul" may ultimately boil down to a hard consciousness question, and I'm not sure science can deal with philosophical questions like that. It simply doesn't seem have the tools.
Hi Larry...so maybe you could help me by telling me what you mean by "conflict with science." I take it that you would agree with me (and Eugenie Scott) that science can't distinguish among the actions of an omnipotent god, and so perhaps you would see the belief in a such a being as being inherently in "conflict" with science. Is that what you mean by conflict?
SFMatheson asks,
I take it that you would agree with me (and Eugenie Scott) that science can't distinguish among the actions of an omnipotent god ...
I don't understand this. Some versions of omnipotent gods are supposed to have caused a world wide deluge about 4500 years ago. I think science has something to say about that.
There are clearly some actions that conflict with science. There may be a few that don't but only if you postulate an omnipotent god that doesn't really do anything.
"I don't understand this. Some versions of omnipotent gods are supposed to have caused a world wide deluge about 4500 years ago. I think science has something to say about that."
Larry, science can test if there was a world wide deluge about 4500 years ago, but science cannot test if deity did it. Of course, if science completely debunks a world wide deluge in human history, then that particular myth is debunked.
Me: I take it that you would agree with me (and Eugenie Scott) that science can't distinguish among the actions of an omnipotent god ...
Larry: I don't understand this. Some versions of omnipotent gods are supposed to have caused a world wide deluge about 4500 years ago. I think science has something to say about that.
That wasn't the point of what I or Scott said. The key word is 'among.' An omnipotent god, by definition, can do anything, any way. So science could never identify any particular phenomenon as not being the direct work of said deity. You're right that science can rule out certain particular scenarios, whether or not said deity was alleged to be involved, but that's not what I was getting at.
I think I'll assume you mean something more simplistic when you refer to science being "in conflict" with religion. You mean that there are some claims of some religions that science would label as impossible. Is that what you mean?
Or do you mean that science is in conflict with supernatural explanation? That one will be hard to defend, I think.
SFMatheson says,
I think I'll assume you mean something more simplistic when you refer to science being "in conflict" with religion. You mean that there are some claims of some religions that science would label as impossible. Is that what you mean?
Sort of. What I mean is that most religions postulate things that science can address and when that happens we find that the things conflict with science on one way or another.
This is pretty much true of all Christian sects that believe in a personal GOd.
Or do you mean that science is in conflict with supernatural explanation? That one will be hard to defend, I think.
I've already said that there is at least one "religion" that doesn't seem to conflict. That's deism.
Larry, all types of deism claim that deity created the physical universe. Is that compatible with your idea of scientific thought?
Post a Comment