Over at the Intersection, Chris Mooney is concerned that we haven’t had a science/religion tiff in what, days? So he wants to offer a defense of organizations like the National Center for Science Education, who choose to promote science by downplaying any conflicts between science and religion. For example, the NCSE sponsors a Faith Project, where you can be reassured that scientists aren’t nearly as godless as the newspapers would have you believe.
In the real world, scientists have different stances toward religion. Some of us think that science and religion are (for conventional definitions of science and religion) incompatible. Others find them perfectly consistent with each other. (It’s worth pointing out that “X is true” and “People exist who believe X is true” are not actually the same statement, despite what Chad and Chris and others would have you believe. I’ve tried to emphasize that distinction over and over, to little avail.)
In response to this situation, we uncompromising atheists have a typically strident and trouble-making idea: organizations that bill themselves as “centers for science education” and “associations for science” and “academies of science” should not take stances on matters of religion. Outlandish, I know. But we think that organizations dedicated to science should not wander off into theology, even with the best of intentions. Stick with talking about science, and everyone should be happy.
But they’re not happy; Chris and others (Josh Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas is a thoughtful example) think that the NCSE can be more effective if it proactively tries to convince people that science and religion need not be incompatible. As an argument toward this conclusion, Chris attempts to horrify us by offering the following hypothetical conversation between a religious believer and an NCSE representative:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: As a policy, we only talk about science and to not take any stance on religion. So we couldn’t comment on that.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: All we can really tell you is that evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, and universally accepted within the scientific community.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: ….
To which I can only reply … um, yeah? That doesn’t seem very bad at all to me. Do we seriously want representatives of the NCSE saying “No, the claim that accepting evolution is the road to damnation is based on a misreading of Scripture and is pretty bad theology. If we go back to Saint Augustine, we see that the Church has a long tradition of…” Gag me with a spoon, as I understand the kids say these days.
Of course, we could also imagine something like this:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: Oh, don’t worry. There’s no such thing as “damnation,” your pastor has just been misleading you.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: Well, that will happen. Prolonged exposure to scientific ways of thinking can lead people to abandon their religious beliefs. But don’t worry, you’ll be happier and have a more accurate view of how the universe works if that’s what happens.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: That would be great! Because that’s what we are. But it’s not as depressing as you make it out to be; correctly understanding how the world works is the first step toward making the most out of life.
How awesome would that be? I don’t actually advocate this kind of dialogue in this particular context — as I just said, I think science organizations should simply steer clear. But these answers have a considerable benefit, in that I think they’re “true.”
That’s the major point. Advocacy and educational organizations have the goal of supporting science and education the best way they can, but there are limits. For example, they should stick to the truth. I tried to make this point in my post about politicians and critics — some people have as their primary goal advocating for some sort of cause, whereas others are simply devoted to the truth. But an organization advocating for science needs to take both into consideration.
And there are some scientists — quite a few of us, actually — who straightforwardly believe that science and religion are incompatible. There are absolutely those who disagree, no doubt about that. But establishing the truth is a prior question to performing honest and effective advocacy, not one we can simply brush under the rug when it’s inconvenient or doesn’t make for the best sales pitch. Which is why it’s worth going over these tiresome science/religion debates over and over, even in the face of repeated blatant misrepresentation of one’s views. If science and religion are truly incompatible, then it would be dishonest and irresponsible to pretend otherwise, even if doing so would soothe a few worried souls. And if you want to argue that science and religion are actually compatible (not just that there exist people who think so), by all means make that argument — it’s a worthy discussion to have. But it’s simply wrong to take the stance that it doesn’t matter whether science and religion are compatible, we still need to pretend they are so as not to hurt people’s feelings. That’s not being honest.
I have no problem with the NCSE or any other organization pointing out that there exist scientists who are religious. That’s an uncontroversial statement of fact. But I have a big problem with them making statements about whether religious belief puts you into conflict with science (or vice-versa), or setting up “Faith Projects,” or generally taking politically advantageous sides on issues that aren’t strictly scientific. And explaining to people where their pastors went wrong when talking about damnation? No way.
Right now there is not a strong consensus within the scientific community about what the truth actually is vis-a-vis science and religion; I have my views, but sadly they’re not universally shared. So the strategy for the NCSE and other organizations should be obvious: just stay away. Stick to talking about science. Yes, that’s a strategy that may lose some potential converts (as it were). So be it! The reason why this battle is worth fighting in the first place is that we’re dedicated to promulgating the truth, not just to winning a few political skirmishes for their own sakes. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? (Mt. 16:26.)
I am just tuning in to this thread and am not about to make a big deal of anything except I completely disagree with Sean on several things even though he is an excellent instructor in his Teaching Company Course. Religion and Science are not at odds if each is honest. There is one truth and each is an attempt to describe parts of this truth. Hence they should never be at odds with each other. That is, religion cannot say one thing is true and science can not say it is not true. It is obviously very difficult to find out what is true and Sean seems to think that science can find the only truth there is but while science has a good track record on many things, it is quite lacking in many other areas. As a simple illustration, religion obviously says there is a God and creator but I doubt science could prove there is no God so while it can give reasonable explanations for many things it could never say that is true.
I am a practicing Catholic and have watched the science/religion debate play out on several subjects but do not really see a conflict. There shouldn’t be if there is one truth.
As an aside the Church in the 4th and 5th centuries made a point of trying to accommodate local culture into its practices. So as opposed to doing away with local traditions, they tried to incorporate them as best as possible into liturgy while still maintaining the basic doctrine. They got away from it in some later centuries in some areas of Latin America and Asia but have gone back to it in areas such as Africa and also as they proselytize again in Asia. Hence the statement
“Christmas may have some roots in Pagan traditions, that doesn’t make it a Pagan holiday.”
was just a reflection of Church policy during the period after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Apparently the sign of the cross came about from German traditions after they were converted. The Church often incorporated other local traditions into its practices and some have become universal within the Church.
This thread is getting silly. Of course science and religion are in conflict. This has to be when science is curiosity and search for truth based on congruence of evidence with reality, and religion is `revealed` truth based on miracles and anecdote, and is considered infallible and unmodifiable by evidence. The atheists I know either do or dont celebrate Christmas with trees. I do. No one really cares, and I certainly dont know or care to know anyone who calls them `Holiday trees`.
Jew: a person descended from Jews who cares about this fact.
“Of course science and religion are in conflict.”
Not from my understanding. If there is one truth, and Sean seems to believe there is and I do too, then if there is a creator then religion and science should not conflict. In Sean’s understanding there is no creator. In my understanding of the truth, there is a creator of the universe. And thus, the intentions of this creator and His nature is part of the truth. Trying to understand these intentions and His nature is probably not in the realm of science but does not mean seeking this understanding is not part of seeking truth or would be in conflict with science.
People may not agree with such an assessment or like it or have any understanding of it. But none of those make it silly and it has driven men for thousands of years to seek this truth. In Sean’s understanding this is wasted effort but in my mind and others it is not. Sean has no certainty that it is wasted and there is nothing in science that can say it is wasted. Sean has a faith in something he cannot prove. So do I and in my understanding religion and science do not conflict. No one has ever shown me why or where they should or do conflict.
To say they are in conflict is to make an a priori assumption for which there is no proof.
It is so easy to show they conflict. Just because in your understanding, they do not conflict
just says something about your understanding. Religion is about faith and myth and magic and miracles and anecdotes and about revelation. Science is about theories of reality based
on evidence and about congruence with actual events and Reality. Science modifies its beliefs when the evidence does not support a theory. Religion never modifies its beliefs because it is the revealed word of God. They are incompatible, and believing they are not is simply a false belief.
“Religion is about faith ”
True, but so is the belief that science will reveal everything or can reveal all the truth that there is or can show that there is no creator. So what every you believe, it is based on faith too. You may also believe in some myths and magic, you just don’t know what they are. Some of the myths maybe what has supposedly been established by science.
I am a big believer in science, read about it all the time. It is sort of a hobby. I am about to download Sean’s book to read it on my computer. Hope I can understand it. Loved his course on Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I have never seen any science that conflicts with my religious beliefs. Let me know what some would be. Maybe I will find it in Sean’s book but I doubt it.
Actually the Catholic Church modified some of its interpretations of the world and scripture based on changes in science. It did not modify any of its essential dogma due to scientific findings. Several other religions have done the same. Some religions and science are definitely in conflict. Young earth creationists is one such set of beliefs. That does not mean all are.
How do you know your creator “truth” is part of the truth? Even some other religions don’t think that.
I propose that even you don’t understand it. Or else you would be able to explain it for others to understand it. Or do you claim to understand your god? You need to just accept it regardless, and that is “faith”.
Not anymore, and it’s been like that since at least Darwin. “Men” who are “in the know” about the most fundamental truths of the universe like cosmologists, physicists and biologists overwhelmingly reject the notion of your “god”, who cares about personal feelings and actions and intervenes if you pray for him. (And no, invoking the names of those in the VERY small minority who are theists is not an argument.)
Depending on your goals, both can be right. If your goal is to be blindly happy, then you’re right.
It may not be wasted for your purpose of blind happiness, but science can say that the religious way of thinking is a waste of resources, cause it never works for real-world universal truth.
No. There’s a lot of evidence that religion doesn’t work for finding out things about the universe. That you don’t know it or deny it is not anyone else’s problem than yours. Researchers have even gone as far as to extend an astoundingly long olive branch to test if prayer works. In the 21st century. Surprise surprise, it’s not better than chance.
And who’s to say your “understanding” dictates what’s true or not? Please make arguments, not shallow assertions.
No, it isn’t. They are pretty much opposite methods of finding the truth. One has OVERWHELMINGLY been shown to WORK, and the other overwhelmingly has shown to either not work at all, or is so diluted as to not make any clear statements (i.e. “god is ineffable”) and thus the religious can get away with it, by saying “there’s no conflict” to a disingenuous audience.
It can’t show that there was no “creator” but that’s not all what most religious folk believe, is it? Most believe that “creator” intervenes and answers prayers and makes miracles and even some think he hates gays. Can’t those be disproven? They already have been pretty much. That people refuse to accept it or don’t know about it doesn’t change things.
Umm. Science WORKS?! It doesn’t work, gets thrown out the window. It’s that simple. Your projection is not working.
(BTW why is it that when religious are confronted with the fact that faith is not a virtue, instead of defending it and arguing it, they just go, “uh, but atheists are also religious”?)
That’s one of your problems. Science doesn’t need belief. It’s either shown to work or it doesn’t and get discarded eventually. Whether you believe something or 6 billion people believe something doesn’t make it true.
So, what you’re saying is that religion (the CC for you) saw science showing them wrong, and it modified itself, just barely so as to not conflict anymore at least PR-wise. There was no conflict there? How about now? Their stances on gays conflict with science? Gays are not “natural” is a theological assertion and “truth”?
It’s not specific religious claims we’re talking about here, it’s the whole way of knowing the religious invoke. It’s fundamentally opposed to scientific processes. Even the most fundamentalist religions may have some claims that don’t conflict with science, but so what.
” … and they grow more timorous, more sniveling, more poltroonish every day.”
Mencken was right:
“The American people constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish,
ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag
in Christendom …”
That’s rather cynical, but there’s certainly a lot of stupid Americans, most of which work in Washington DC. However, this debate is absolutely useless because there’s no right answer. The entire debate is based on point of view and defended using whatever suits your own views. Unlike science, it’s pure politics.
http://www.corrupt.org/news/why_science_vs_religion_debate_is_an_illusion
Perhaps the most balanced view is from `Abdu’l-Bahá, son of the founder of the Baha’i faith:
“Religion without science is superstition and science without religion is materialism.”
http://www.experiment-resources.com/religion-vs-science.html
Well religion is superstition and science is materialism. Religion is always without science.
There’s a problem with materialism?
One can be materialist and moral. Secular humanism, for example, is perfectly moral without being based on anything but scientific fact.
“Mencken was right:
“The American people constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish,
ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag
in Christendom …””
Spot the redundancy!
You beat me to that quote 🙂 Bill Maher has been saying much the same thing recently.
Bill Maher ain’t no H.L. Mencken – who was quite a tory
he does have a way with words, doesn’t he.