Science and religion: could you help me with more examples, please?

[onimolap]

I want to show DCs that science and religion are not always and inherently at loggerheads.

I know the example of Georges LeMaître, the Catholic priest who was the father of the Big Bang theory.

Can anyone help with further examples?

There is no reason for science and faith to be at loggerheads. All faith has to do is accept scientific evidence as fact, e.g. evolution. Another thing that would reduce friction would be for people of faith to state a level of evidence that would make them change their minds. Simple really.

erm isnt evolution a theory? not a fact?

Thanks Grimma - that is exactly what I was alluding to - I do not pay very much attention to what the CofE says but when I heard about that one it did make me smile.

Dan - I was talking about religion in general (not just Christianity) and it is interesting that the same traits about morality are present in most of them. A specific and rather crude example of what I am talking about is in the Jehovah's Witness cult. These people believe that they have to convert a certain number of non-believers to 'go to heaven' - and they even know exactly how many it is.

As for things that cannot be true here are a couple that spring to mind;
People do not live after they are dead (Christianity)
People cannot walk on water (Christianity)
Statues do not drink milk (Hindu)

I am sure that I could think of many more if I cared to.

What prompted me to post on this thread is the idea that science and religion are considered by some to be equal and (sometimes) conflicting ways of interpreting the world - this seems to be what is taught at some schools in the UK. As if the were in some way equivalent! To me this is the really damaging view.

If a person believes that there is a God whose underlying presence basically underwrites creation, then there is no conflict. IMO God created/creates this universe and all its systems, including the evolutionary system we have on this planet.

Talking in general about religion doesn't really help. What is meant by "life after death" for example. Asking anyone here to explain what was scientifically going on at the Resurrection is pointless and actually (and more importantly) besides the point. There are folk who are materialist for whom all matter in the universe is empirical, to be weighed and measured and repeatably tested before it is accorded validity (and worth). And there are those who believe that physical matter is not all there is.

To state that scientists who are also theists have necessarily "adapted" their beliefs to as to be able to sit at the same table as other "proper scientists" is patronising and misunderstands the nature of belief.

Dan - thanks for your reply.

As has been stated by others previously on this thread - your first paragraph concedes so much of the ground that if that is your position it is hardly worth being religious at all. That view does not say anything about the nature of god (benevalent, vengeful etc) which in general religions do (including Christianity). But even if it is your true position, there is still a conflict of science - because in the absence of any evidence (and there isn't any) the default position is to believe that there is no god - that is the rational 'scientific' position.

As for your comments on the materialistic view of life - what else do we really have if we are completely honest with ourselves?

If a person believes that there is a God whose underlying presence basically underwrites creation, then there is no conflict.>>

If only all religions were simply that then how much better the world would be.

If someone 'believed' that though I still wouldn't employ them to do scientific research. The last thing you want if doing serious work is someone who thinks wanting a thing to be true makes it so.

That is the underlying incompatibility isn't it. Sure you can get a job or a qualification which says you are a scientist, but if you don't believe in the scientific method then you are not truly a scientist.

Really? You wouldn't employ anyone who was religious to do scientific research? Because I think the majority of religious people (besides creationists etc) believe in a kind of 'clockwork evolution' whereby God started it all in motion and let it do its thing.

There are gazillions of people who believe this, and are more than happy to work with the scientific method. Even in evolutionary research! I really fail to see the problem there.

lucysnowe, oh in practise a mature, well educated Christian would probably do a far better job than a non-believing school leaver who had never quite mastered long division. :)

Still, there's a principle we're illustrating here. To honestly and sincerely believe in something without proof you must first decide that believing things are true without testing them is reasonable. If you genuinely think intuition will tell you the truth then there is no need to do experimental research. Just write down whatever you feel is right.

It's not so much that I think the world is full of scientists choosing the results on the basis of prayer as I think that the so called religious scientists are mostly not religious at all deep down.

Dan
this was I guess in response to me:

To state that scientists who are also theists have necessarily "adapted" their beliefs to as to be able to sit at the same table as other "proper scientists" is patronising and misunderstands the nature of belief.

Thats not exactly what I meant. More like this: before geologists began to realise how old the earth was, it was not unreasonable to believe Bishop Usher, for want of other evidence. Before Darwin, it was not unreasonable to be a creationist, for want of other evidence. However, in the light of those discoveries about the true nature of the world, many religious people realised that they need to read Genesis as metaphorical truth rather than literal truth. I would contend that to be a real scientist you do have to be able to take this sort of step as and when such contradictions arise. This is not incompatible with the belief of an 'underlying presence' as you state it - or even to the existence of a personal saviour.

I certainly didn't mean to sound patronising - I was a Christian myself when I embarked on my science degree, yet always understood and adhered to the scientific method. I saw the Bible as a part of God's revelation, but not one which could override what was revealed in nature. My own experience tells me that there does not have to be a conflict between being religious and being a scientist.

Thank you for your comment, Grimma However, I think most biblical scholarship over millennia and still today would agree that Genesis 1-3 was not written to be taken literally, and that people encountering the story back then would have understood that completely. Augustine was reading the first chapters of Genesis as metaphorical truth back in the C4th. 'Literalism' has really only been a phenomenon in biblical studies in the last 100 years or so.

I see the Bible as part of God's revelation, yes, and also see the world and universe as we find it and understand it as another part of that. So there is no conflict.

Is it worth being religious at all if you think God is the grounds of our being and the universe existing? Surely yes!

Absence of empirical data for God implies that only the material exists. It is currently popular to think that such things as love, peace, beauty, self-giving, joy etc are evolutionary tools. It is mere footling guesswork, and akin to some of the discreditable theories of evolutionary psychology.

I'll certainly agree that literalism may have been patchy but the point is that where a former belief is found to be contradicted by science, a scientist has to adapt the belief, not ignore or fiddle facts to match dogma.

Another obvious example is the Catholic church belatedly realising Galileo was right and their previous insistence on an earth-centric universe was wrong - so we can have good Vatican astronomers (I'm sure they adapted long before the apology was issued!)

Dan;

Yes it may be 'worth' believing in god or whatever but the truth is that this is actually incompatible with a scientific view of the world. As pointed out before, to adopt this position you have to accept that something is true (existence of god) without having any evidence for it.
As for your comments about evolutionary tools, yes a lot of it is speculative. But, as all science is, it is put out there and anyone can dispute or disprove these ideas on the basis of rational argument or experimentation. This is in stark contrast to the orthodox religions of the world who generally try to crush any dissenting views (before eventually adapting their own beliefs if there is overwhelming evidence).

The human mind has a capacity to accommodate things which aren't logically compatible though. Take freewill - there seems to be precious little by way of evidence for it, and increasing evidence against... but still we feel and behave and formulate our ethics as though we have freewill. Maybe religious belief is somewhat akin to this?

*I had to write this, you know.

Yes Grimma, the human mind certainly does have that capacity. I completely accept that there are many things that science cannot explain atm or even get close to explaining. But the debate is about whether having religious beliefs is compatible with a scientific view of the world.

I know! I remain unconvinced on the arguments for 'no free-will' as well.

I believe love is real. It can't be measured or tested empirically. It is not just a chemical reaction or a convenience.

The thing about adapting beliefs to match dogma - dogma relating to specific and rather limiting patches of eg. biblical text is also very little to do with actual belief or faith. Following the Christian faith is about following Jesus, and believing in his divinity and its expression, and how he invited us to relate to God - it's not about dogma. So sun-going-around-world, literal-or-evolutionary-creation don't take away from God as creator. What it might do it make us re-assess the nature of God and of creation (as Darwin did, though he and I would come to different conclusions, I think).

It's an interesting debate. ElBurro, you seem to want physical material evidence. I have over 25 yrs of evidence that I love my OH and he loves me but maybe this evidence isn't true and maybe it isn't real either because I can't put it under a literal microscope or draw a physical line around it. Maybe you would call it a convenient fiction or trick that my genes have played on me. But as far as I can see, even without introducing God into the mix, life does not organise itself on a genetic level: the gene is not the determinator of all life's functions and events.

I can also only speak from my own position, as a fairly liberal Christian who reads the bible as part of God's revelation; and from my studies of evolutionary science and genetics and sociobiology, I - like many others -can also see a perfectly compatible position which encounters and lives with the reality of both science and theistic belief. I don't recognise in my own national church a body of orthodox people who crush dissent, so I can't speak for them.

Burro - it perhaps depends what you mean by 'compatible'. If you mean capable of peaceful co-existence - then, more or less it can be done - at least to the extent it can seem compatible to a religious scientist.

The real 'loggerheading' of course comes with the religious people who are not of DandyDans ilk - the people who are hung up on dogma or particular interpretations of the bible (or other text).

Dan;

That is exactly the point - real science is all about physical material evidence and that is why having religious views is incompatible with it. Nothing that you have said answers this.

I wouldn't want to speculate on your love for your husband but you can be sure that underlying your feelings for each other there is something physiological happening that will explain it. That does not diminish in any way the qualitative experience that you feel, but do not mistake this qualitative feeling for more than it is.

Without going into specific cases, religion does have a long history of trying to crush dissent. I don't think that there is any need to say any more than that on this point as I'm sure most of us can think of numerous examples - it happens in our world all the time at the moment.

Grimma,

That is the point that onagar addressed before. There is a level of intellectual dishonesty in accomodating both. The reality is more likely to be that although the religious belief makes you personally feel better it is completely ignored in your professional life. As you point out humans are very capable of holding mutually contradictory positions at the same time, but this fact doesn't make the positions logically consistent.

Science may be about real physical evidence in some respects (though string theory has very little to do with physical evidence), as it is looking at aspects of the world and universe in a particular way. There are other aspects to the world and its physicality and its reality. Science is not wrong in its understanding (except when it is wrong and has to adjust its thinking, which happens many times) and IMO religion is not wrong in its understanding of there being something more than physical matter in the universe.

Forget the physiological response element of love - we have physiological responses to everything in every moment of our lives. How do I know I am loved truly by my husband? Where is the scientific evidence that he would give his life and the very best of himself for me - which I know to be the case? Can he prove it in a scientifically measurable way - no. But it is real and true and existing nonetheless. Obviously this is an imperfect parallel, but it'll do.

However, busy times, busy people - leaving this one for now to get on with the weekend.

Dan - the debate is about whether the two views of the world are compatible with each other. I don't think that they are if we are actually being honest with ourselves. As stated by others before, as humans we are very able to accomodate logically inconsistent positions. The central point to this argument is that to be religious you have to believe some things that you have no evidence for. I think we all accept that. IMO that is inconsistent with scientific method and a scientific view of the world - that is all.

The answer to the point in the second paragraph is - if you really wanted to - you could design a controlled experiment where your husband was forced to make the choice that you suggest (would he give his life up for you?). Then you would really know. And before you say that is ridiculous, people do that sort of thing in an uncontrolled way all the time. After all, why are you so sure that he does love you? Because he has demonstrated that to you in the physical world already - not because of there is 'something more than physical matter in the universe'.

Elburro, Dandydan - I think the incompatabilty goes beyond believing things there is no evidence for (like that your husband loves you - although I don't think this analogy is quite right, there are plenty of good reasons to think that someone loves you or not) but is about believing things that actively require you to believe in the impossible, where there is strong evidence against (like your teddy bear loves you, or that a dead body loves you).

If the definition of god goes beyond Dandy Dans underwriter-of-everything to any kind of intervention (sending messages, virgin births, resurections, turning water into wine, wine into blood etc..) then it is claiming that the unknowable non-physical stuff that must be taken on faith can and has on many occaisions interacted with the physical stuff of matter, brains etc..and made them do impossible things.

Most people, not just scientists discount this understanding of the world in their day to day lives, prefering the more reliable assumption that things like gravity, force, light, energy etc.. act regularly and not in some unknowable capricious way.

Somehow religious folk (unless they take a metaphorical view of the whole thing) manage to wall off part of their understanding of the world and say the rules are different there.

I don't know how they do it. It completely baffles me. I guess that many don't think about it too hard (as evidenced by all the posters who assume that the only incompatibility between science and religion is around evolution).

For others I suppose the feeling of god is too strong to write off. My closest analogy is to seeing. We know that our vision is a pattern of light projected on to the back of our retina, but it feels like something projected around us. Knowing how it really works doesn't change the feeling.

I have no scientific evidence for love. Is your argument that love isn't "real"?
You are constructing this discussion on the grounds that a scientific view of life is the only valid one there is.Religious people will maintain that life including the scientific understanding of its physical nature is part of a creation and universe that also has non-material qualities and that there is something more than what is visible and poke-able with a stick.

Claiming that the non-physical stuff has interacted with matter in impossible ways? This happens all the time - you mean people loving one another, creating music and art that is attractive to the eye and ear perhaps? Or perhaps you are talking about the resurrection?

Another (again, imperfect, as these things must be) analogy is that of a painting. A scientist might be able to deconstruct it in terms of technique, molecules of matter and chemical composition and spatial harmonics, but says nothing about what it means, or if it is beautiful, why is is in the first place or who the artist was/is. It is quite possible to look at the world and its science and its nature and know that there is more to it than the physical matter of which it is constructed. Repeatedly saying that this constitutes incompatibility doesn't actually mean it does. For me, the one sphere incorporates the other; I don't agree with Gould's NOMA idea, although I think there is some merit in it.

It's awfully quiet out there from other theists on this board - any more opinions on this?

Hi Dandy Dan.

Thanks for holding up the theist end, otherwise we'd have no one to talk to!

You seem to be thinking of 'scientific evidence' as meaning something that has to be taken apart in the lab and expressed in molecular terms. I think it is wider than that. There are different ways of understanding natural systems, at the appropriate level - they are not 'different ways of knowing' though but compatible explanations at different scales - sub atomic physics is the basis for understanding chemistry, chemistry is the basis for understanding DNA, proteins etc..., understanding how these chemicals interact helps to make sense of genetics, genetics helps to make sense of the biology of organisms, biology helps to understand behavior and culture, studying behavior and culture help to understand politics and history etc..

It's not that everything can be reduced down to atomic or biological explanations but that if the high level explanation contradicts what we think is going on at a more basic level then one or other of them is wrong.

So yes there is a scientific understanding of love (hormones, nerves and such like) but there are also reasonable reasons to think that
someone loves you - are they alive, do they know you, how do they act towards you. I would say you don't really take you husbands love on irrational faith, but if you are convinced that George Clooney loves you then you are taking that on irrational faith (unless of course that is who you are married to in RL )

art, music etc... are made by physical beings bound by laws of nature. It doesn't mean that you can't understand them at a higher level, but it doesn't involve magic.

The impossible things I am talking about are the things that if true would mean we would have to revise scientific understanding of the world - virgin birth, resurrection, transubstantiation, angels, souls, winged horses, communication through burning bushes etc... If any of this stuff actually happened, then everything we think we know about how the world works, through scientific investigation and rational thought is wrong.

Knowing/feeling there is a God/God loves you comes, for believers, into the same knowledge as knowing your partner or parent loves you; not George Clooney. Neither does belief in a higher begin invoke magic.

From your list, I would confirm my own belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and souls - but what that is/what they are would be another long conversation and not one with the straight-edged definition that I think non-theists who want answers to these things, would accept.

Does it mean I don't believe three strangers spoke to Abraham and Sarah, or someone spoke to Mary about the birth of her child? Not at all - but 'angel' means 'messenger'. Do I believe God 'speaks' to people? yes, but not necessarily as people imagine, and not from a loudhailer; but is it inconceivable that Moses heard God's word to him when in the desert? Not at all. People reading the bible can understand these things as figurative, which is sometimes how they were intended.

Dan,

You can't have it both ways. The things that you believe in are incompatible with a scientific view of the world - I think that you accept this and this is really all we have been talking about. You cannot just shoehorn your version of reality into a rational scientific explanation of our existence. Supernatural occurances have no place in this.

There is a scientific explanation for love - Himilaya touched on it earlier. Anyway, if you really believe that god just lit the blue touch paper and then did not intervene (as you said originally). then you accept that the emotions and feelings we have towards each other must have evolved along with our species. Otherwise where did they come from?