Should science and religion be mixed? I say that science has no place meddling with peoples deep-seated beliefs, and religion has no place trying to meddle with the knowedge of science.
Many people disagree with this. For example, the intelligent design movement: a shoddily disguised group of people who are too ashamed of what they're doing to admit that they want the bible to replace hundreds of years of scientific research. This is exactly the sort of meddling that should be forbidden.
On the other side, there are people like Richard Dawkins, who want religion to be banned or disbanded. They attack religion as being an outmoded, controlling scheme designed to control people. They attack peoples most deeply held beliefs simply because they believe that their way is the only way, which makes them just as bad as the worst of the religious people, just in the opposite direction.
Religion and Science are not neccesarily incompatible. Science, which is based on hard evidence and an examination of provable facts, is designed to tell us how the world around us works. Religion, which is based on tradition and scripture, seeks to explain what life is about. In other words: science tells us how, and religion tells us why. They need not cross paths. My wife, who is deeply Christian, is a dedicated scientist and medical student. She knows that science explains how and religion explains why, and her beliefs do not contradict one another.
So why do religious persons meddle in science? And why do scientists periodically (although a lot less often) meddle in religion? If these two pursuits were to simply let each other be, then maybe there would be less strife and chaos around in the world today.
As superintendant Chalmers of The Simpsons once put it: "Religion has no place in a science class, just like science has no place in religion."
I see exactly what you're saying. If people could get over this whole "science vs. religion" mentality, I think we would all be the better for it. If any religious group is so confidant in their beliefs, they should have no fear of science "disproving" anything. As a Baha'i, I see science and religion as equal, and believe they should work together to better humanity. (haha sorry this sounds so lame) Great thought though.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the except in light of evolution." So who said this? At first glance, most would obviously think that it was one of those abhorrent Darwinian evolutionists completely opposed to creationism. After all, the two cannot coexist--that endangers the perfection and holiness of the Divine. That is the underlying thought that has plagued a majority of Americans since th Scopes-Monkey trial. So, is that the truth? Can a God so powerful, holy, and just see evolution as a threat? No. The existence of God is an actual truth and the scientific endeavors concerning the natural world are objectively true. These two truths cannot contradict each other, and they must find a harmonious balance of co-existence.
Only since the Scopes-Monkey trial of 1925, did the issue of whether or not evolution and creationism could cohabitate with each other became just that--an issue. Let it be known that even strong Christian saints like Augustine even saw the merits of the harmony of these two theories. In order to fully understand what a co-existence of these two theories bring to the table, it is right to examine them differently on their own merits and demerits, culminating them into what some call theistic evolution--the belief that serious believers in science can also be serious believers of the faith.
I just wanted to correct your quote from Superintendent Chalmers - the original quote is actually a lot more pointed - "God has no place within these walls, just like facts don't have a place within organized religion"
That's why I love the Simpsons.
... who thinks there IS a conflict between science and religion, I want to correct some errors here.
(1) Neither Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett (nor myself for that matter) advocate that religion be banned. What we would like is for religious belief to die a natural death.
(2) As I said in my blog here, religions do make claims that are subject to scientific scrutiny. I see no reason why it is we shouldn't do just that. When we do, we find that these claims are not well supported by the available evidence.
You claim that science attacks people's deeply held beliefs. So what? That is what we are supposed to do in science. We test out deeply held beliefs. Doing so has been the source of all our scientific progress.
Why do religious beliefs deserve a free-ride? Why is it OK to use scientific techniques to determine a person's paternity, but it is rude to use scientific techniques to question the efficacy of prayers, the age of the earth, or the logic of having the universe created by an intelligent being who supposedly has a specific purpose for each of us?
You say your wife is deeply religious and still a scientist. That may be. I know a few scientists like that. I must confess I am deeply puzzled by them. These are people who will passionately argue a scientific theory with evidence and logic. There is no offense taken when one questions their preferred theories. In fact, that is where a scientist shines. He knows the controversies and he knows the evidence and he can support his views.
But when I questions these scientists about their religious beliefs they flounder. They give no evidence. They give no logical reasoning in support of their views. It is as though they have completely compartmentalized their lives. Everything else is subject to questioning, but their religious beliefs are held to a different standard. Either there is no questioning, or else they believe so long as there is the slimest logical possibility that any God exists then it is reasonable to believe their God exists.
This does not mean that a conflict between the two disciplines does not exist, it means that the only way to avoid an open conflict is to shut your brain to it. I find that too high a price to pay.
(3) I DO find the scientific method the best way of approximating the truth of anything that can possibly known. It will never lead to absolute assurance that one is correct, but by using it one can be absolutely assured that one has the best knowledge to base one's beliefs on.
I think the success that science has in explaining the workings of the universe attests to that. I see no reason that scientific methods can not also shed light on how to live one's life. So far we have allowed untested religion to direct us. How has that worked?
True, if we use scientific techniques we will still go astray ... sometimes horribly ... but we will learn. That is the thing about the scientific method, it is self-correcting. We will make progress. Despite the numerous setbacks we would eventually have a reasoned ethic for living together.
With religion we just shuffle back and forth between failed paradigms. The cry is, "We need to get back to God's holy ways". WHAT HOLY WAYS?? The good old days were not that good. Things are not necessarily worse now than back then, they are just different. Praying more is not going to help. Determining the right thing to do and doing it will help. Religion has never been a good source of determining what the right thing to do is. That is why even though we have been religious throughout history we still haven't got a clue on how to live together.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
You should look into Francis Collins...
Francis Collins saw a beautiful frozen waterfall and became a believer.
That makes no sense at all. The waterfall may very well be beautiful but it in no way entails a supernatural being. It is the consequence of natural processes. Natural processes we can fully understand.
The cliff that the waterfall goes over is there because of plate tectonics. The water got there by evaporation and condensation. The rain is mediated by electromagnetic forces causing enough water molecules to clump together and gravity on that mass of water overcoming the brownian forces of rest of the atmosphere. The river runs downhill by gravity.
There is no need to believe a God was necessary for any of that. And if you postulate God then you need to explain where he comes from. Collins dismisses it by saying that God is outside of time and space. Really?? What the hell does that mean? What it means is that we cannot possibly understand it. That is like trying to explain the unknown by invoking the unknowable. Collins would never accept such shoddy reasoning in any area of science that he has expertise. Why does he accept it here?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
Francis Collins used to live down the street from me. I don't know where you got your waterfall scenario from, but from what I know of him and what he's told me, he became a believer by reading C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity...
Oh, and here's a question...name me one person you love.
And claims he found no philosophical errors in it. I read a small portion (the argument that has now come to be known as the trilemma ... Jesus either the LORD, a LIAR, or a LUNATIC) of it found it stultifyingly silly. So that does not
However, here is a passage from Collin's book LANGUAGE OF GOD describing his acceptance of Jesus.
====
On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains … the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.
====
Name one person I love?? What a non-sequitur!! What a personal question!! Why limit it to one? I love quite a few. Probably just like you I love the people I know well. That would be my family and my close friends.
I'm curious to see how much and what type of jerk you are ... why did you ask that question?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
"That would be my family and my close friends."
Prove it.
Not trying to be rude, but I was trying to make a point.
You can't REALLY prove prove that you love someone. You just know. Same with faith in Christ and knowing that God exists. You just know.
Your whole approach is severely flawed.
No one is asking for a standard of absolute proof. One is only asking for reasons that withstand scrutiny. I can give you that for my belief that I love my family.
I make sacrifices for them. I work hard to earn money that goes to their welfare. I consciously try to put their welfare above mine. I devote much of my time to them as I can. I make promises to them that I do everything within my power to keep. I do this without a second thought. And I feel good for having done it.
Those are reasons that withstand scrutiny.
I've never met anyone who can provide reasons that withstand scrutiny for their belief in God.
If you claim that you commune with him then you need to explain why it is that the messages you get seem so different than the ones others who claim to commune with him.
Postulating God as the originator of anything in the universe is not a satisfying explanation since it leaves the origin of God unanswered. If anything doesn't require an explanation then why not the universe itself?
And then you have to come up with some explanation for the problem of unnecessary suffering ... why would God allow suffering beyond the absolute minimum necessary to achieve a higher good? If the bible is God's inerrant word, then why are there all these apparent errors?
And we haven't even yet touched on the logical incoherencies of the whole God hypothesis. What DOES God really want from us? Does it REALLY make sense that he wants communion with us but refuses to show himself. Why did he make the universe the way it is? I can come up with better ways to do it without even thinking hard. For instance, the life in the ecosystem can be roughly divided into 3 groups; producers (plants etc.), consumers (animals etc.), and decomposers (some bacteria and fungi). A stable ecosystem could be obtained by having just producers and decomposers. Consumers aren't really needed. So why didn't God just make us intelligent plants? That way he would avoid having the only way a large portion of his creation survive is by killing another large portion of it.
There are plenty of other questions that the God hypothesis comes easily to mind that no apparent satisfactory answer exists. The number of questions is so huge and the gaping lack of answers makes it unreasonable (in the sense that it doesn't withstand scrutiny) to assume that God exists.
So ... No! I don't think you KNOW that God exists. I think you WANT God to exist, you probably firmly BELIEVE God exists. But you do not have sufficient reason to believe it. And without that you cannot know it.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
Let me try to refute both of your main claims. The first, you say that God as the originator of anything in the universe is not a satisfying explanation since it leaves the origin of God unanswered. Satisfying to whom? We, humans? He does not work on our schedule, clock, or agendas. He doesn't act the way we FEEL or rationally THINK He should act. God gave his only Son for the world, and you or me, even before we could even understand it, even while we peeing in our diaper, even while we were in our mother's womb. God acted totally apart from anything we did. We also see an instance in the Gospel where a little girl is healed several miles away from Jesus without her doing or saying anything at all. It is true, that in other cases, Jesus did ask the healee to do something-- such as the time he told 10 lepers to go and show themselves to the village priest to confirm their healing. The bottom line is, though, God can act when, where and however He wishes, irregardless of us or how we believe he should act. On the other hand, when we invite him to act in our lives through prayer, this gives him permission to intervene on our behalf and opens up the lines of communication that we might know his will much more clearly. So it's a "both/and" type of thing, not an "either/or."
Your second question is as old as time itself. Basically, "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" Well, this is a subject I could discuss with your for several hours and still only scratch the surface. As I said once on another blog post, I believe God's intentional will for each of us is that we all live a long, fulfilling, healthy life. God does not want any of us to suffer or to die prematurely. You often see in obituaries that God wanted this or that baby because He needed another rose in His garden. It may be a comforting thought, but what does that make God out to be--a murderer who goes around killing children just to make parents and grandparents suffer?! If that's the case, let me be an athiest! No, I believe there are circumstances that surround us because we live in a fallen world--disease, famine, war, snipers, accidents, etc. Our physical bodies are imperfect and quite finite. And on occasion these circumstances
will cross our paths, and sometimes even kill us. God does not want this to happen to us, but He doesn't put us in some airtight, bulletproof bubble either. He does work in the confines of our frail human existence to bring healing and strength to us when we fall victim to such circumstances, and on occasion, even performs miracles. But we have to accept that we live in a fallen world and will have to endure unpleasant and even death-producing things at times.
Now the Good News is that even when these circumstances do cause our physical death, they cannot harm our spirit. Our spiritual bodies go to, and remain with God for glorious eternity. And in the grand scheme of things, eternity is a much, much, much, much, much longer time than the years of our physical existence here on earth. Check out Romans 8:28-39, I Corinthians 15:35-58.
So really, does God have general plan for our lives--yes. God intended for me to have an amazing gift to play the guitar. Does God have it down to the minute and second when I'm going to leave this earth--I don't think so. He may have decided for me to take a dirt nap on January 16, 2028. But if I walk out of my house and stand in front of a tractor-trailer on I-81 this afternoon, I don't think He's going to suspend the laws of physics to prevent me from going to be with Him in heaven today.
Er ... you didn't do a good job of refuting anything.
(1) It does not matter how God works. The reason "Goddidit" is an unsatisfying answer is because it doesn't get to the root of the problem any better than leaving him out.
Philosophically the problem is called "the First Cause". If I were to ask you how you came into existence and you told me it was because of your parents, that would not be a satisfying answer because it leaves the origin of your parents unexplained. You could explain that by bringing up your grandparents, but again that is of no help. How did they get here? You could go back through all your ancestors right through the first cell but that wouldn't explain it either. How did that get here. You could go back in the causal chain to the origin of the Big Bang. But that doesn't quite do it either. How did that happen? This is where theists proudly rush in and claim "Goddidit"! But this too is no explanation because it leaves God's origin unexplained.
The usual theistic response is that God doesn't need an explanation because he was never created, he always existed. But that is even a bigger mystery than the origin of the universe, How could he have always existed. Why are we so fortunate to happen live in hyperverse that just so happened to have a being that could create us?
So the questions that it raise are worse than the question that it answers; THAT IS WHY "Goddidit" is unsatisfying as an explanation.
(2) God's actions as portrayed in the bible are certainly a problem. You say God "doesn't act the way we FEEL or rationally THINK He should act". You are right ... he acts like an all-powerful idiot.
No one would think that an idiot's actions are that of a superior being so why should we think that God is a superior being.
(3) I find the idea of God giving his only begotten son as a sacrifice for our sins, an affront to human intelligence. Tell me ... what did Jesus's death do that allows God to do that he couldn't have done without Jesus's death?
(4) Jesus in healing people often exorcised demons. But no one in their right mind believes diseases are caused by demons anymore. So why should we believe any stories of Jesus's healing miracles?
(5) When one prays to God one is either asking for guidance or else one is asking for him to alter the laws of nature for one's personal benefit (in other words ... a miracle).
When people pray to God for guidance, the guidance they get does not seem to be coming from the same source. People are told different and conflicting things.
As for miracles ... intercessory prayer has been investigated scientifically and to date the evidence is pretty clear ... there is no effect.
(6) Sigh ... as for the problem of unnecessary suffering. The logic is simple:
If God is omniscient, then he knows that unnecessary suffering (suffering beyond the absolute minimum necessary to accomplish a greater good) exists.
If God is omnipotent, then he can prevent unnecessary suffering.
If God is omnibenevolent, the he wants to prevent it.
The fact that unnecessary suffering exists shows that God cannot be omnimax (omniscient, omnipotent, & omnibenevolent).
If God is not omnimax then he is either:
(a) At least a little stupid ... he does know where unnecessary suffering will occur,
(b) At least a little weak ... he isn't strong enough to prevent it,
(c) At least a little mean ... he doesn't want to prevent all unnecessary suffering,
(d) Some combination of the above, or
(e) non-existent.
Those are your options, there are no more ... take your pick. You can BS all you want about how God wants things for us all you want. But it is plainly silly crap whose sole purpose is to obsfucate the issue in order to avoid scrutiny.
(7) Now for the good news ... God doesn't exist. All reasonable evidence points to it. That's OK, we never needed him in the first place. We have what it takes to make the world a better place on our own. All we need is a vision of a better world that we can agree upon and the creativity and the willpower to achieve it. Getting rid of irrational things like "Goddidit" will certainly go a long way toward removing impediments from achieving the vision, and a dedication to reason will be an indispensible tool for achieving it all.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
Of course they should mix--they are both about discovering truth.
It's messy beyond that, but to compartmentalize or completely reject (without any investigation) one or the other would be dumb.
Nancy
I think the problem is that science has been known to debunk popular religious beliefs. That tends to piss people off and so it becomes an us. vs. them mentality. Religious folk don't want scientist telling them that something they believed happened could not have possibly happened and scientist want religious folk to prove that what they believe happened really happened. Those don't mix well and since no one can agree to disagree and play nicely in the sandbox, someone always has to pick up their marbles and huff off in a tizzy. Apparently, there aren't enough adults in the rink telling everyone to play nicely and trying to erase the lines in the sand.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
"May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back. May the warm rays of the sun fall upon your home."
A few other things I would like to weigh in on....
Freeing God from the burden of special acts of creation does not remove Him as the source of the things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It merely shows us something of how he operates.
A believer need not fear that this investigation (into evolution) will dethrone the divine; if God is truly Almighty, He will hardly be threatened by our puny efforts to understand the workings of His natural world...What we cannot discover, through science alone, are the answers to the questions 'Why is there life anyway?' and 'Why am I here?'
Many believers in God have been drawn to creationism--especially YEC because they see scientific advances as threatening. But does He really need defending here? Is God not the author of the laws of the universe? Is He not the greatest scientist? The greatest physician? The greatest biologist? Most important, is He honored or dishonored by those who would demand that His people ignore rigorous scientific conclusions about His creation? Can faith in a loving God be built on a foundation of lies about nature?
Just some thoughts...all brought to you by Dr. Francis Collins--founder of the Human Genome Project...
The reason that science and religion don't "mix" very well is simple.
Sicence is objective.
Religion is subjective.
The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
percivale
Exactly. Which means then, they can equally both be true.
> Exactly. Which means then, they can equally both be true.
Objective belief leads to truth.
Subjective belief leads to opinions.
If both science and religion reach the same conclusion about a particular belief, the similarity is purely coincidental.
percivale
"...the similarity is purely coincidental..."
If you can say that, what is stopping your from thinking, "If it can be coincidental...why couldn't it just as easily be truth?"
> If you can say that, what is stopping your from thinking, "If
> it can be coincidental...why couldn't it just as easily be
> truth?"
The beliefs of religion very well COULD be true, but since religion refuses (or is unable) to provide the kind of evidence that is needed to determine the truth-value of its claims, it is unlikely that we will ever get a satisfactory answer to that question from it. The fundamental mind-sets behind religion and science are mutually exclusive. Since requires proof, and religion rejects the need for proof. One simply cannot satisfy both types of reason.
percivale
And if there is one thing that stuck with from all of my college science classes, it is that nothing in science is EVER concrete, 100% truth. That's simply not the result of science. It is ever changing, ever evolving (gasp! Yes, I DID use that word). So that argument is flimsy at best. And yes, one--to a point--can satisfy both types of reason, since they both derive from the One main source.
Comparing the way that religion and science change their "beliefs" clearly demonstrates the incompatible nature of their underlying philosophies.
Science is constantly "evolving" as you say because as our knowledge increases, the underlying theories have to be altered to take that new knowledge into accout.
Religion on the other hand is based on fallacy of logic in which knowledge is assumed to be true, even though it cannot be proved. When a religion changes its beliefs, that change is arbitrary. Nothing changes about the core arguments or evidence (such as it is) which supports a belief in religion. Instead, change occurs only when someone in authority over the religion "decides" to change his mind.
The simple fact is that all religions, without exception, hold at their very core a belief in some sort of supernatural force, usually called "god" or something similar, and all subsequent beliefs are irrevocably dependant on this belief. And, despite the wide promulgation of religions throughout the world (and throughout history), not ONE of them has ever been able to prove that this simple--and more importantly KEY-- premise to be true.
Science, however, does not suffer from this flaw.
percivale
"The simple fact is that all religions, without exception, hold at their very core a belief in some sort of supernatural force, usually called "god" or something similar, and all subsequent beliefs are irrevocably dependant on this belief."
True to a certain point. But of all the religions and philosophies in the world. Christianity is different in one aspect. All religions try to get you to attain something--hapiness, peace, enlightenment....the list goes on and on. Christianity does not. That one little aspect sets it apart from all others.
It is grace.
Christianity offers "salvation" as the lure on the end of its hook, and this REWARD is no different than the "hapiness, peace [and] enlightenment" you ascribe to other religions.
Of course, even if we were to accept your rebuttal, how would this in any way change the fact that your religion has no more evidence to support its basic claims than any other (which is to say, "none")?
percivale