Saturday, June 2, 2012
Are Science and Religion Compatible? – II
In our last blog post we noted that Dr. Jerry A. Coyne challenged the notion that science can accommodate religion. Science, he says, is grounded in a naturalistic worldview, and as such cannot be made compatible with religion.
We would have to agree that, insofar as a naturalistic philosophy goes, "science," in the broader sense in which Dr. Coyne uses the term, most certainly is incompatible with Christianity. It is, in fact, an anti-Christian ideology. But is a naturalistic philosophy an essential component of science?
Dr. Coyne certainly thinks so. He argues that a naturalistic philosophy is a logical corollary of a naturalistic methodology. The problem here is that he is expanding the scope and reach of the scientific method to include too much. According to him the scientific method does not just study nature, it seeks to understand and interpret the universe. It aims at nothing less than a comprehensive explanation of reality. But there is a problem here. Since the scientific method relies on the physical senses, it can discern only physical matter. And if it can discern only physical matter, any worldview built exclusively on the senses will inevitably be a materialistic one. But the problem here is not that the immaterial world does not exist, but rather that a naturalistic methodology cannot recognize it. It is a limitation inherent in the method. What we have here is philosophical overreach.
There is something more to reality than just bare physical matter. Nature points to something beyond nature, to a first cause and an organizing principle, and divine revelation is necessary to elucidate the ultimate purpose and design of things.
The scientific method works perfectly well within the framework of Christian Theism. Thousands of physicians, many of them devout Christians, use the scientific method every day to diagnose their patients. Their belief in God does not compel them to discard the germ theory of disease. Indeed, their faith has provided them with the motive to devote their talents and energy to science and the healing arts. Many hospitals were founded by religious organizations.
Evolution, of course, remains a problem. However, if we set aside the naturalistic worldview, would evolution still be "proven"? Dr. Coyne would no doubt argue that the idea of a supernatural first cause is superstitious nonsense. But we reply that the idea that matter can bring itself into existence without the aid of an external force is even greater nonsense. Matter does not create itself.
The stakes could hardly be higher. Dr. Coyne himself says "Evolution, of course, contravenes many common religious beliefs – not just those dealing with Biblical literalism, but those dealing with morality, meaning and human significance" (p. 2). But science and religion are completely compatible as long as science confines itself to the observable facts of nature. It is only when science tries to become the exclusive method of discerning truth and an all-encompassing worldview that it becomes "scientism," and comes into conflict with Christianity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
..."science," in the broader sense in which Dr. Coyne uses the term, most certainly is incompatible with Christianity. It is, in fact, an anti-Christian ideology.
ReplyDeleteIt's not anti-Christian.
It's anti-magical thinking.
It's not like science is picking on any one particular religion or anything.
But there is a problem here. Since the scientific method relies on the physical senses, it can discern only physical matter. And if it can discern only physical matter, any worldview built exclusively on the senses will inevitably be a materialistic one.
So far, you have yet to get to the problem bit.
But the problem here is not that the immaterial world does not exist, but rather that a naturalistic methodology cannot recognize it.
The "what" world?
Did you say "immaterial"?
How do you recognize a magical, "immaterial" world?
There is something more to reality than just bare physical matter.
Such as what? How do you test for it?
Nature points to something beyond nature.
How does it point to what exactly?
...to a first cause and an organizing principle, and divine revelation is necessary to elucidate the ultimate purpose and design of things.
Surely all that should be in Capital Letters?
"...to a First Cause and an Organizing Principle, and Divine Revelation is necessary to elucidate the Ultimate Purpose and Design of Things."
See? Everything looks much more impressive and substantial if you use capital letters.
"The scientific method works perfectly well within the framework of Christian Theism. Thousands of physicians, many of them devout Christians, use the scientific method every day to diagnose their patients. Their belief in God does not compel them to discard the germ theory of disease. Indeed, their faith has provided them with the motive to devote their talents and energy to science and the healing arts. Many hospitals were founded by religious organizations."
Ah, the gift that keeps on giving.
"The scientific method works perfectly well within the framework of Hindu Theism. Thousands of physicians, many of them devout Hindus, use the scientific method every day to diagnose their patients. Their belief in gods does not compel them to discard the germ theory of disease. Indeed, their faith has provided them with the motive to devote their talents and energy to science and the healing arts. Many hospitals were founded by religious organizations."
"The scientific method works perfectly well within the framework of Muslim Theism. Thousands of physicians, many of them devout Muslims, use the scientific method every day to diagnose their patients. Their belief in Allah does not compel them to discard the germ theory of disease. Indeed, their faith has provided them with the motive to devote their talents and energy to science and the healing arts. Many hospitals were founded by religious organizations."
"The scientific method works perfectly well within the framework of Mormon Theism. Thousands of physicians, many of them devout Mormons, use the scientific method every day to diagnose their patients. Their belief in Elohim does not compel them to discard the germ theory of disease. Indeed, their faith has provided them with the motive to devote their talents and energy to science and the healing arts. Many hospitals were founded by religious organizations."
But we reply that the idea that matter can bring itself into existence without the aid of an external force is even greater nonsense. Matter does not create itself.
Tides go in, tides go out.
You can't explain that.
(shrug)
In this case the label switching might work with Islam, but not with Hinduism, and here is the reason why: in a monotheistic worldview the ultimate reality is a single, eternally self-existing rational being who created everything else. This is why it is possible to make rational sense out of the universe.
DeleteIn a polytheistic worldview, however, there is no one god who is in control of everything. Thus there is some kind of reality that is more ultimate than the gods themselves. But what is it? At the crude, primitive level it is chaos - you just have a lot of gods constantly fighting with each other, and not acting in a particularly moral fashion, either. In some of the more philosophical forms of Hinduism you might have something that veers off into pantheism -- and some sort of impersonal cosmic determinism.
This is why monotheism is critical for science.
...in a monotheistic worldview the ultimate reality is a single, eternally self-existing rational being who created everything else. This is why it is possible to make rational sense out of the universe.
DeleteNon sequitur.
In a polytheistic worldview, however, there is no one god who is in control of everything. Thus there is some kind of reality that is more ultimate than the gods themselves.
Wha...?
At the crude, primitive level it is chaos - you just have a lot of gods constantly fighting with each other, and not acting in a particularly moral fashion, either.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
In some of the more philosophical forms of Hinduism you might have something that veers off into pantheism -- and some sort of impersonal cosmic determinism.
This is why monotheism is critical for science.
Non sequitur.
Thousands of physicians, many of them devout Hindus, use the scientific method every day to diagnose their patients.
Sounds reasonable.
Their belief in gods does not compel them to discard the germ theory of disease.
Plenty of Hindu doctors that sterilize their instruments and know why they do it.
Indeed, their faith has provided them with the motive to devote their talents and energy to science and the healing arts.
Again, any religious person can go on about faith and how it inspires them to do whatever. That includes Hindus.
Many hospitals were founded by religious organizations.
Muslims, Hindus, Mormons...even Catholics. Lots of religions out there.
In this case the label switching might work with Islam, but not with Hinduism...
Nope, it works with Islam and also with Mormonism and Hinduism and probably with a variety of other religions out there. I'll even throw in Scientology for good measure.
But the problem here is not that the immaterial world does not exist, but rather that a naturalistic methodology cannot recognize it.
ReplyDeleteNeither can the epistemology of religious faith.
Religious belief is profoundly anti-scientific. Profoundly. One must compartmentalize the two and hold belief without evidence to be a vice in science while doing science, and then upending that entirely holding belief without evidence to be a virtue while doing religion. The same method is successful for pedophile priests, but that's not evidence that the two are therefore mutually compatible... even though many orphanages have been built by the those who also help pedophile priests avoid legal responsibilities for their crimes.... you see the problem with your reasoning?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you lost me on the pedophile issue.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Christian theistic belief is at all anti-scientific. In fact, I think it is one of the best supports that science has. To understand why I have to stress that Christianity does not involve "belief without evidence" as you put it. Rather it is a rational faith in something for which there is evidence. One theologian I was reading recently (Robert L. Dabney) put it this way: ". . . from the very nature of the human mind, belief cannot possibly arise without evidence, any more than bodily vision can take place without light."
A Christian epistemology arises from three different sources of knowledge: sense perception, intuition, and written revelation. With our sense perception we receive sensory data about the physical world around us. Our intuition tells us that God exists, we are a conscious rational self with a will, and that there is a difference between good and evil. Written revelation gives us an interpretation of reality and reveals certain things we could not know otherwise, e.g. there is life after death.
It is important to realize that each one of these sources of knowledge has a strength and a weakness. Sense perception can be very concrete and specific. Intuition can give us insight into the unseen world. But how can we be sure that either our sense perceptions or intuitions are accurate? For this we need written revelation. It confirms the other two, and combined, they give us a comprehensive view of reality.
The view of reality that thus emerges is that nature exists as an objective, external reality and has a logical order to it. This is why it is possible to study it scientifically. But while human beings live in nature and are affected by it, strictly speaking we are not entirely a part of it. We are both spirit and flesh. This is why we can function as rational beings who can study the physical sciences. It is also why we can function as moral beings who can tell the difference between right and wrong.
Science, then, can tell us about nature - how it works and what it is made of. But it cannot tell us the meaning and purpose of life or what is right and what is wrong. For these things we are dependent upon our other sources of knowledge, intuition and revelation.
As for the evidence for these things, surely on all those Christian apologetics blogs you browse you how have encountered plenty of evidence!
To understand why I have to stress that Christianity does not involve "belief without evidence" as you put it. Rather it is a rational faith in something for which there is evidence.
DeleteWhat evidence? And why not rely on such evidence and ditch the faith bit completely?
I don't think that Christian theistic belief is at all anti-scientific.
You can back this up, right?
A Christian epistemology arises from three different sources of knowledge: sense perception, intuition, and written revelation.
Extreme fail.
Your epistemology is clearly anti-scientific.
Written revelation? Nothing scientific there.
Next!
Intuition? Oh, stop it. Now you are just being silly.
Next!
Sense perception? Translate that into observations and now you have something in common with the scientific world.
Both theologians and scientists don't normally walk around with their eyes shut.
But there the similarity ends.
We are both spirit and flesh.
The magical, oogity-boogity "spirit". Very scientific. Not.
We are both spirit and flesh. This is why we can function as rational beings who can study the physical sciences.
Non sequitur.
As for the evidence for these things, surely on all those Christian apologetics blogs you browse you how have encountered plenty of evidence!
Name it. Spell out this "evidence".
Look, religion cannot even get its own house in order: with more than 30,000 christian sects alone, surely one must be a dullard of the highest order to think belief leads to any kind of knowledge of the way things are... compatible with, say, the kind of knowledge that leads us to know that water as a molecule is made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. How we arrive at a belief and how we arrive at knowledge of the way things are are not the same kind of inquiry. At all. In any way. Religious belief is not tested against reality to establish its veracity, which is why we can enjoy literally tens of thousands of incompatible religious beliefs each vying to be taken as the one true 'knowledge' about the way things are. The variance in religious belief shows us just how inadequate belief is to reveal anything about reality.
DeleteIt is the other way around in science where only what is true for everyone everywhere all the time is to be taken as 'knowledge' and even then only provisionally. And this, too, raises an obvious incompatibility with religious belief. Scientific knowledge is provisional, subject to the reality it tries to describe, whereas religious belief is an imposed certainty on reality immune from it having any role in self-correction.
Obviously, these are not compatible ways of knowing. One is trustworthy, one is not. A clue for those unsure which is which might take note that there is only ONE METHOD for chemistry, which is the same ONE METHOD for physics, which is the same ONE METHOD for geology, which is the same ONE METHOD for biology, and so on. The properties deduced from using the same ONE METHOD, let's say, of some chemical composition or force or biological development is not subject to the vagaries of local beliefs, biases, preferences, histories, narrative myths, and prejudices as revealed to some ancient local authority undergoing an epileptic seizure but to reality for everyone everywhere all the time.
To overcome the striking lunacy that informs the notion that science and religious belief are actually compatible methods of inquiry when every fact stands opposed to this blatant absurdity as much between religions as it is against science, a ludicrous notion that argues that belief yields different but equivalent kinds of knowledge when not one scintilla of evidence for the religious method can be produced, please note the essential need for the religious to use undefinable terms intended to befuddle and obfuscate and misrepresent these obvious discrepancies. Although we try to use language to describe the reality we inhabit, the religious apologist pretends that our language defines reality to gain enough wiggle room for religious belief to continue to seem reasonable. It's not. It never was. It cannot be reasonable because, like reality, reason plays no part in maintaining superstitious beliefs. Fear alone is the central defining characteristic of religious beliefs. Unless and until we get over the fear of facing reality as it is rather than how we would prefer it to be, this kind of accommodationist nonsense will continue to stick its nose under the tent of knowledge where it simply does not belong.
Theology obviously uses a different method than in the physical sciences. Theology (and here I am thinking primarily of conservative, evangelical Protestant theology) is based on revelation and reasons deductively, whereas the scientific method is based on the observation of nature and reasons inductively. Revelation provides the general support for the physical sciences -- it confirms that the physical universe has a real,objective existence and that it possesses certain qualities such as time, matter, form and number, and that it all ultimately makes sense. It also affirms that you, as a scientist, are a thinking, reasoning human being and not just a brute beast. Obviously the Bible is not going to tell you how a water molecule is put together. For that you use the scientific method, and it works just fine.
ReplyDeleteWhere there probably is a conflict, however, is in the so-called "social sciences" -- psychology, sociology and economics. The Bible does have a great deal to say about how human beings think and act. Strikingly modern secular psychology generally does not like to recognize the concept of sin, yet how can you understand aberrant human behavior without it?
Conclusions deduced are only as good as the veracity of the premises. The problem with theologies is that the premises are untestable assertions, assumptions, attributions, and so on, immune from having any method in place for reality to have any role in correcting them. When you write that revelation provides the general support for the physical science you miss the point entirely (again): it is the absence of any METHOD to determine the veracity of the theological premises that dooms it to equivalency with delusion. This is why religious beliefs do not offer us anything equivalent to knowledge but it ,most assuredly offers us a path to delusion.
DeleteRevelation provides the general support for the physical sciences...
ReplyDeleteSuch as? Specifics?
Does that include other religions or just your geographically specific religion?
It also affirms that you, as a scientist, are a thinking, reasoning human being...
What does that even mean?
Where in the bible does it mention scientists at all?
How does the affirming bit come into it?
Sounds very flabby and made up.
Obviously the Bible is not going to tell you how a water molecule is put together.
Why obvious?
Unless, of course, the bronze-age goat herders didn't know that stuff.
Nor will it tell you about basic hygiene. Imagine the lives that would have been saved if there was mention of washing hands before touching food or bathing wounds or running medical instruments through a hot flame or alcohol.
Plenty of info on demons though.
And stoning.
And slavery.