Saturday, May 5, 2012
Science and Religion – III
In our review of Stephen Jay Gould's book Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, we noted that Dr. Gould called his solution to problem of how science and religion relate to each other "NOMA," or "Non-Overlapping Magisteria." According to Dr. Gould, science and religion each has its own proper sphere, or "magisterium," and as long as each confines itself to its own sphere there will not be any conflict. But, as we noted earlier, Dr. Gould's proposed solution to "the nonproblem of our time" offers cold comfort to devout believers. As it turns out, in Dr. Gould's view, the only kind of religion that is compatible with science is one that has been stripped of all its supernatural elements.
The problem with "NOMA" is that Christianity, at least, purports to be based on facts. The biblical narrative aims to report real history – the Flood, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection are asserted to be real events that occurred in space and time. At one point in his book Dr. Gould recounts the story of "Doubting Thomas," recorded in John chapter 20. At the end of the narrative Jesus rebukes Thomas for his lack of faith. Dr. Gould sympathizes with poor Thomas – his only mistake was that he employed the methodology of science in the magisterium of religion, which calls for faith. But Dr. Gould misses the whole point of the story. John relates the episode in order to underscore one all important point: the physical resurrection of Jesus was a real, historical fact. Even the most skeptical of the disciples was compelled to admit as much when confronted with indisputable evidence.
Modern science, on the other hand, is wedded to a rigidly materialistic philosophy. Thus, at the bottom of it, the conflict between modern science and religion is really a clash between two competing and mutually exclusive worldviews, between naturalistic materialism on the one hand and Christian theism on the other. One cannot be a naturalist and a supernaturalist at the same time. In order for NOMA to work, on the basis of Dr. Gould's scheme, Christianity would have to accept the limitations imposed on it by science. It would have to abandon most of its core beliefs about creation, providence, and redemption. The claims of its central figure would be just plain nonsense – a classic example of a "Fundamentalist extremist" imposing " a dogmatic and idiosyncratic reading of a text upon a factual issue lying within the magisterium of science" (p. 93) as Dr. Gould calls modern day creationists. Dr. Gould, in effect, is asking Christianity to commit suicide. In the end, his "humane, sensible and wonderfully workable solution" is really no solution at all, and the conflict between Christianity and modern science is a very real problem indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is a problem, and a very real one that is not compatible with some kind of mewling compromise.
ReplyDeleteWe know for example that if on the one hand the science of genetics accurately reflects reality - and we have compelling evidence it does from technologies, applications, and therapies that work for everyone everywhere all the time - then we know that this science reveals reality to show that Adam and Eve were not the historical parents of humanity. On the other hand, if genetics is wrong, then it's still possible. There is no middle ground. But from those who think genetics is wrong, then please explain how.
We know for example that if on the one hand the science of geology accurately reflects reality - and we have compelling evidence it does from technologies, applications, and mining techniques that work for everyone everywhere all the time - then we know that this science reveals reality to show that no global flood ever occurred. On the other hand, if geology is wrong, then it's still possible. There is no middle ground. But from those who think geology is wrong, then please explain how.
Answers that depend on 'Oogity Boogity' as a cause for real effect in reality are not answers unless and until you can show how this causal effect works and by what mechanism links the two. Failing to do this but insisting on belief contrary to the method of science that works for everyone everywhere all the time to be compatible requires you to show why your belief alone deserves special exemption from reality in this one circumstance. Failing to this shows either intellectual hypocrisy or delusion. Between these two positions there also is no middle ground.
I think that we have to be careful here to distinguish fact from theory. Here are the basic facts:
Delete1) genetics: species reproduce themselves according to certain well defined laws of heredity. The answer to Lamarck and Darwin should have been Mendel, Crick and Watson (and even Jerry Coyne in his more candid moments!). What we can actually observe and test in nature suggests that the transmutation of species or macroevolution is highly unlikely.
2)geology: in order for a fossil to be formed at all, an organism has to be buried quickly. In order to produce the vast oil and coal reserves we have today huge amounts of organic material had to have been buried quickly and subjected to enormous pressure.
Furthermore the fossil records shows that life existed in distinct species, just as it does today.
We also know from science that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, and that order does not spontaneously arise out of chaos.
In other words, the evidence simply does not support either geological uniformitarianism or evolution. The commonly held theory is not supported by the facts.
I think that we have to be careful here to distinguish fact from theory.
DeleteYet are you prepared to do so?
What do scientists mean when they use the word "fact" and what do scientists mean when they use the word "theory"?
(...awkward silence...)
Ah, that's a shame.
Here are the basic facts:...
Why not just give the facts as opposed to your creative re-interpretation of them?
The answer to Lamarck and Darwin should have been Mendel, Crick and Watson (and even Jerry Coyne in his more candid moments!).
Wha...?
What we can actually observe and test in nature suggests that the transmutation of species or macroevolution is highly unlikely.
Who is this "we" you speak of, paleface?
geology: in order for a fossil to be formed at all, an organism has to be buried quickly. In order to produce the vast oil and coal reserves we...
Bob, this is the internet.
Telling tall stories on the internet is a waste of your time and mine. It's all too easy to verify one way or the other.
Furthermore the fossil records shows that life existed in distinct species, just as it does today.
As opposed to what? "Indistinct" species? Where do you get this babble from?
We also know from science that there is no such thing as...
Bob, your understanding of science is on the same level as your understanding of history.
Please stop. You are not helping.
In other words, the evidence simply does not support either geological uniformitarianism or evolution.
Not according to modern biology and geology. However, if you truly believe that you have overturned all the Earth Sciences then whip up that scientific paper and claim your Nobel prize. Fame and glory await you.
The commonly held theory is not supported by the facts.
What do scientists mean when they use the word "fact" and what do scientists mean when they use the word "theory"?
(...awkward silence...)
Ah, that's a shame.
I am using the word "theory" in the same sense in which Jerry Coyne uses it. He begins by quoting the Oxford English Dictionary, and then adds ". . . in science, a theory is much more than just a speculation about how things are: it is a well-thought-out group of propositions meant to explain facts about the real world." (Why Evolution is True, p. 15).
DeleteAs for the formation of fossils, this may be the internet, but it is Prof. Coyne as well. Here is how he describes the process: The formation of fossils is straightforward, but requires a very specific set of circumstances. First, the remains of an animal or plant find their way into water, sink to the bottom, and get quickly covered by sediment so that they don't decay or get scattered by scavengers. (Ibid., p.21).
And as for distinct species, Prof. Coyne tells us this: "Indeed, perhaps the most striking fact about nature is that it is discontinuous. When you look at animals and plants, each individual almost always falls into one of many discrete groups" (Ibid., p. 169).
I guess Dr. Coyne's understanding of science is just about as abysmal as mine!
"I think that we have to be careful here to distinguish fact from theory. ". . . in science, a theory is much more than just a speculation about how things are: it is a well-thought-out group of propositions meant to explain facts about the real world."
Delete"The formation of fossils is straightforward, but requires a very specific set of circumstances. First, the remains of an animal or plant find their way into water, sink to the bottom, and get quickly covered by sediment so that they don't decay or get scattered by scavengers."
"Indeed, perhaps the most striking fact about nature is that it is discontinuous. When you look at animals and plants, each individual almost always falls into one of many discrete groups"
If you'd written like this then your understanding of science would indeed sound like Dr Coyne and the rest of modern biology.
However, it's when you stray from the reservation that you lose the plot.
Dr Coyne is not on your side of things.
Reality is not your friend.
First, the remains of an animal or plant find their way into water...
There is no magical barrier that prevents that from happening.
Exhibit A: Fish.
...sink to the bottom...
Gravity still works.
...and get quickly covered by sediment so that they don't decay or get scattered by scavengers.
Yep. Sediment is still being produced like it always has and it ends up covering stuff.
I don't pretend that Dr. Coyne is on my side. But he does have enough integrity as a scientist to report the facts correctly. That's why I was astonished when I read the word "quickly" in the sentence. Without intending to, he just proved Velikovsky's whole point. (And the point of Henry Morris, the father of modern Creationism). The evidence points to a sudden geological catastrophe, a catastrophe involving a lot of water . . .
DeleteI don't pretend that Dr. Coyne is on my side.
DeleteWell, perhaps to avoid confusion, you might not want to use misleading language like "I guess Dr. Coyne's understanding of science is just about as abysmal as mine!".
Your understanding of science is not like Dr Coyne's.
Not even a little bit.
...I was astonished when I read the word "quickly" in the sentence. Without intending to, he just proved Velikovsky's whole point.
No, he didn't. Read it again.
First, the remains of an animal or plant
Note the use of the singular?
We're talking about an example. Maybe a plant or an animal. Either will do. A single example to illustrate how fossilization works.
So a single plant or animal gets covered quickly.
Not exactly something to be astonished by.
It's basic physics and chemistry.
Can't you imagine the remains of some plant or animal being covered quickly by sediment in the here and now?
Easy stuff. Happens all the time.
The evidence points to a sudden geological catastrophe, a catastrophe involving a lot of water...
Where does Dr Coyne say this?
(And the point of Henry Morris, the father of modern Creationism).
Henry Morris is another dead kook. He believed in genuinely weird things. Science was not his strong point.
Ask yourself how the craters of the moon were formed.
That one is a hoot.
(No, really! Stop what you are doing and look it up. I dare you to read it with a straight face.)
Not even you are prepared to accept a 6000 year-old Earth.
How much do you know about the history of Young Earth Creationism? It's not as old as you might think.
Dr. Coyne obviously does NOT say that the evidence points to a catastrophe. While Dr. Coyne does an excellent job in presenting the evidence, the problem is that his conclusions don't logically follow.
DeleteVelikovsky's whole point is that fossils are NOT being produced today, whereas they should be if Lyell were right.
I have The Genesis Flood, which Henry Morris coauthored with John C. whitcomb. Morris was a civil engineer who taught hydraulic engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. "The Genesis Flood" was first published in 1961. There is no mention, that I can find, of the moon it. His main interest was in how the Genesis flood would have affected the earth's geology.
The reason I think that the earth may be old but the fossils are not is this: Things like the speed of light and the half-life of radioactive materials are relatively constant. The creates a very strong presumption of an extremely old universe. But the rate of sedimentation is not constant, especially if the earth was subjected to a catastrophe. And the evidence suggests that some sort of catastrophe happened. And this is where the business of fossilization comes in. The evidence (accurately reported by Coyne) supports Velikovsky and Morris, not Coyne, although Coyne would surely never admit it.
Dr. Coyne obviously does NOT say that the evidence points to a catastrophe.
DeleteYes, it's very obvious.
He did not prove Velikovsky's whole point.
You can't get there from here.
While Dr. Coyne does an excellent job in presenting the evidence, the problem is that his conclusions don't logically follow.
According to who? You? Hmm.
Velikovsky's whole point is that fossils are NOT being produced today...
Why not?
What magical barrier is now set in place that stops basic physics and chemistry?
First, the remains of an animal or plant find their way into water...
How does this not happen?
...sink to the bottom...
Is this the tricky part? Somehow gravity no longer works?
...and get quickly covered by sediment so that they don't decay or get scattered by scavengers.
Does sediment no longer cover stuff?
What magical barrier is now set in place that stops basic physics and chemistry?
There is no mention, that I can find, of the moon it.
Ok, before you go digging any deeper on that one, let me ask you a question.
Those craters on the moon. What caused them?
(No peeking. Just come up with what you think a rational, mild-mannered person such as yourself would conclude. What caused those round holes that litter the face of the moon?)
Seriously, please give an answer. I suspect that your answer and mine will be the same.
"In order for NOMA to work, on the basis of Dr. Gould's scheme, Hinduism would have to accept the limitations imposed on it by science. It would have to abandon most of its core beliefs about creation, providence, and redemption. The claims of its central figures would be just plain nonsense – a classic example of a "Fundamentalist extremist" imposing " a dogmatic and idiosyncratic reading of a text upon a factual issue lying within the magisterium of science" (p. 93) as Dr. Gould calls modern day Hindu creationists. Dr. Gould, in effect, is asking Hinduism to commit suicide. In the end, his "humane, sensible and wonderfully workable solution" is really no solution at all, and the conflict between Hinduism and modern science is a very real problem indeed."
ReplyDelete"In order for NOMA to work, on the basis of Dr. Gould's scheme, magic would have to accept the limitations imposed on it by science. It would have to abandon most of its core beliefs about creation, providence, and redemption. The claims of its central figures would be just plain nonsense – a classic example of a "Fundamentalist extremist" imposing " a dogmatic and idiosyncratic reading of a text upon a factual issue lying within the magisterium of science" (p. 93) as Dr. Gould calls modern day magic believers. Dr. Gould, in effect, is asking Magic to commit suicide. In the end, his "humane, sensible and wonderfully workable solution" is really no solution at all, and the conflict between Magic and modern science is a very real problem indeed."
Quite right! I think that Tildeb got the point of Dr. Gould's book and my reply. Actually some Hindus, who conceive of their religion in pantheistic terms, might find a way to reconcile Hinduism with evolution (evolution is the outworking of the world-spirit that pervades all of reality), but a I doubt that that would satisfy Dr. Gould, who seems wedded to the idea of mechanistic determinism.
DeleteActually some Hindus, who conceive of their religion in pantheistic terms, might find a way to reconcile Hinduism with evolution...
ReplyDeleteActually some Christians, who conceive of their religion in monotheistic terms, might find a way to reconcile Christianity with evolution...
Same diff'.
They tried, and failed. It was called theological liberalism. The problem is that they relied on a form of Idealist philosophy, which nobody takes seriously anymore. William Jennings Bryan is supposed to have made the comment, "Liberalism the is the anesthesia they use while they amputate your faith."
ReplyDeleteBob, if you can't reconcile your religion with the physical sciences then so much the worse for your religion.
ReplyDeleteYou might ask people to reject science and yes, some of them will, however it's ultimately self-defeating.
People that will do such a disturbing, twisted thing are not the people you want to hang around with.
Even you reject a 6000 year old Earth.
Ah, but I can reconcile my religion with the physical sciences. If science confines itself to the observable facts of nature there is no conflict with religion at all, and experimental science has very definitely been a tremendous benefit to society. What cannot be reconciled with religion is a philosophy of naturalistic materialism. It is one thing to say that science can only look at natural causes. It is another thing to say that natural causes are the only causes that exist. There is no problem with the first statement. There is a huge problem with the second.
ReplyDeleteYet even you reject a 6000 year old Earth.
DeleteIt is one thing to say that science can only look at natural causes. It is another thing to say that natural causes are the only causes that exist.
Therefore magic.
And ghosts. And demons. And angels. And pixies etc.
It doesn't work.
Part I
DeleteNo, Bob, you cannot reconcile your religion with the physical sciences unless you eject the scientific method, which is dependent, not on 'naturalistic materialism' (which is a fabrication of creationists everywhere to misrepresent science intentionally and dishonestly) but, on methodological naturalism (MN).
Please note the really important word at issue here in the incompatibility between religion and science: METHOD. That's how we answer the 'HOW' questions. Let us compare and contrast religion with science (and drop the 'physical' term... it's unnecessary):
The method of inquiry into reality by religion is one of faith, meaning a position of trust and confidence empowered by a willingness to believe that a proposition is true FIRST. This explains why religions have so much supernatural elements (and dogma to reinforce them) that effortlessly waxes and wanes between the metaphorical and historical, and why creationists in particular cherry-pick only that data that gives the appearance of support while ignoring all other contrary and conflicting evidence from reality. The faith-based belief is true because the believer first believes it is true; reality's role is to fit inside this belief or be ignored/impugned/maligned. This is the method of religious inquiry, drawing upon such trustworthy sources as 'revelation' and 'scriptural authority'. Obedience to the belief is both necessary and central.
The method of inquiry into reality by science is one of hypothesis, experimentation, testability, falsification, prediction, and repeatability, meaning a position of trust and confidence must be earned by a consistency of evidential results in reality that clearly demonstrate how propositions about cause leads to effect for everyone everywhere all the time. Even then, room is left for evidential data that may emerge later contrary to this explanation. Knowledge that is dependable and reliable is always held to be provisional. This explains why scientists must first seek and then account for all evidential data - especially any evidential data that doesn't fit. When an explanation succeeds to account for all the data and meets all challenges, then it gains the exalted status of being a theory. A theory is true because it explains the facts and on this basis - this demonstrated basis - it informs applications, technologies, and therapies that work for everyone everywhere all the time. The theory is true not because anyone believes it to be true but because it stands (or falls) in reality on its own merit alone. Reality arbitrates whether or not the method of inquiry works by producing tangible and consistent and reliable and practical results that can tested and retested to the skeptic's delight and yield the same results. Reality is also the final authority and not the wishes and desires and imaginations and delusions of those who practice this method.
Part II
DeleteClaims to supernatural causation are fine. Demonstrate it. Show and then explain how supernatural causation produces natural effects but you must also carry the burden of proof, the means by which we can successfully explain HOW this cross-dressing mechanism links the supernatural cause to the natural effects. Anything less than this should produce - at the very best - a clearly enunciated "I don't know". That is honest. Substituting a belief and coming up with whatever explanation seems to fit the belief with appeals to Oogity Boogity for all the unknowns - as well the appeal to authority of some thousands of years old 'source' inspired by 'divine' revelation - and which doesn't produce (so far in human history) any more knowledge than the tinfoil hat wearing paranoid schizophrenic who hears alien radio signals.
What the creationist always manages to forget to do is explain why evidence that should be present if the belief were true is absent and account for this absence honestly. Remember the key questions:
1)Is the claim true, and
2) HOW do you know?
Without a reliable methodology to answer the 'HOW' question, the creationist should answer the first question honestly with "I don't know" and save themselves the embarrassment of making stuff up for the second. Anything more is lying for Jesus, or Mo, or what have you.
I reconcile my religion with science the same way Robert Boyle and Sir Isaac Newton did -- the order and structure in nature points back to an intelligent being who created it. As for what you said about the scientific method, all I can say in response is "Amen"! If we look at the evidence, and use inductive reasoning, which is the more likely hypothesis: that reality somehow created itself spontaneously? Or that the first cause is an eternal, self-existent intelligent being? Frankly, I think that the first hypothesis in incredible. The existence of a Creator seems pretty obvious to me.
ReplyDeleteI know, Bob. This is the a priori assumption necessary for your faith. But remember what Richard Feynman said: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
ReplyDeleteAn epistemology shown to work is an excellent way to accept the burden that comes with this first principle. An epistemology that backs up only what seems obvious yet fails to adequately explain anything is a very poor choice. Remember also, religious belief produces zero knowledge. That's a rather obvious indictment about its epistemological value, don't you think?