Seeing and Believing: Does the empirical nature of science contradict the revelatory nature of faith

[muriel_volestrangler]

A review, by biologist Jerry Coyne, of 2 books that try to reconcile science, especially neo-Darwinian evolution, with religious faith; and comments on his (long) review, including by Giberson and Miller themselves:

Seeing and Believing

The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail.

...
And so the culture wars continue between science and religion. On one side we have a scientific establishment and a court system determined to let children learn evolution rather than religious mythology, and on the other side the many Americans who passionately resist those efforts. It is a depressing fact that while 74 percent of Americans believe that angels exist, only 25 percent accept that we evolved from apelike ancestors. Just one in eight of us think that evolution should be taught in the biology classroom without including a creationist alternative. Among thirty-four Western countries surveyed for the acceptance of evolution, the United States ranked a dismal thirty-third, just above Turkey. Throughout our country, school boards are trying to water down the teaching of evolution or sneak creationism in beside it. And the opponents of Darwinism are not limited to snake-handlers from the Bible Belt; they include some people you know. As Karl Giberson notes in Saving Darwin, "Most people in America have a neighbor who thinks the Earth is ten thousand years old."

The cultural polarization of America has been aggravated by attacks on religion from the "new atheists," writers such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, who are die-hard Darwinists. Outraged religious leaders, associating evolutionary biology with atheism, counterattacked. This schism has distressed liberal theologians and religious scientists, who have renewed their efforts to reconcile religion and science. The "science" is nearly always evolutionary biology, which is far more controversial than any area of chemistry or physics. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief; the philosopher Michael Ruse produced Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? (his answer is yes); and there are high-profile books by theologians such as John Haught and John Polkinghorne. The Templeton Foundation gives sizeable grants to projects for reconciling science and religion, and awards a yearly prize of two million dollars to a philosopher or scientist whose work highlights the "spiritual dimension of scientific progress." The National Academy of Sciences, America's most prestigious scientific body, issued a pamphlet assuring us that we can have our faith and Darwin, too:
...
Would that it were that easy! True, there are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers. But this does not mean that faith and science are compatible, except in the trivial sense that both attitudes can be simultaneously embraced by a single human mind. (It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers. ) It is also true that some of the tensions disappear when the literal reading of the Bible is renounced, as it is by all but the most primitive of JudeoChristian sensibilities. But tension remains. The real question is whether there is a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science. Does the empirical nature of science contradict the revelatory nature of faith? Are the gaps between them so great that the two institutions must be considered essentially antagonistic? The incessant stream of books dealing with this question suggests that the answer is not straightforward.
...
But the big problem with this "reconciliation," in which science does not marry religion so much as digest it, is that it leaves out God completely--or at least the God of the monotheistic faiths, who has an interest in the universe. And this is unacceptable to most religious people. Look at the numbers: 90 percent of Americans believe in a personal God who interacts with the world, 79 percent believe in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, and 72 percent in the divinity of Jesus. In his first popular book, Finding Darwin's God, Kenneth Miller attacked pantheism because it "dilutes religion to the point of meaninglessness." He was right.

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472

On inauguration day, President Obama announced the goal of "restoring science to its rightful place" while, in the same speech, acknowledging that nonbelievers are citizens of this nation in the same way as followers of religion. In light of the growing tendency of scientists to speak out about their lack of faith, isn't it now time to ask a few questions? Is "belief in belief" as defined by Dennett a good thing? Is there merit in the late Stephen Jay Gould's assertion that religion and science form "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA) which address two independent ways of arriving at truth? Isn't it now time for an honest discussion about whether science and belief are indeed compatible?
...
LAWRENCE KRAUSS

There is too much ink spent worrying about this question. Religion is simply irrelevant to science, and whether or not science contradicts religion may be of interest to theologians but it simply doesn't matter to scientists. What matters are the important questions science is dealing with, from the origin and future of the universe to the origin and future of life.
...
HOWARD GARDNER

Of course, if you believe in the scientific method and the scientific enterprise, you will have little patience for belief in revelation (whatever that is). Still, all of us, even the most extreme rationalists, harbor contradictory beliefs in our minds and we somehow muddle through. For me, the important line in the sand is not between those who believe in religion/God and those who don't; it is between those who are tolerant of others' beliefs, so long as they dont interfere with one's own belief system, and those who will not tolerate those whose belief system is fundamentally different. In other words, I'll settle for mutual tolerance, though I prefer mutual respect.. And now that we at last have a president who is both religious and truly tolerant, respectful, ecumenical, inclusionary—let's mute the religious wars for awhile and say a prayer (sic) of thanks.'
...
KENNETH R. MILLER
...
In addition to making the usual claims about the lack of evidence for God, Coyne flatly states that faith and science are not compatible, arguing that the empirical nature of science contradicts the revelatory nature of faith. What about the tens of thousands of scientists, now and in the past who were people of faith (including roughly 40% of all working scientists in the US, members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science)? Coyne waves them away with scorn, literally comparing them to "adulterers" who have subverted their vows to be true to science—or at least to Coyne's view of science. More on that later.
...

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html

An interesting collection of opinions (I haven't read through all the Edge comments yet, and there may even be a few more to be added - I'm not sure). I find Coyne's review/article very convincing, though.

[jody]

1. I've spent several decades reading attempts to reconcile the natural world as it is discovered

by scientist with the supernatural world with its magic that violates the laws of nature as pontificated by anyone with a talent for creating myths.

I no longer read such things.

[Why Syzygy]

2. Actually

what removes the entire conflict is to use a MORE literal view. That would be to assume that the counting of 'years' refers to the story as it unfolds in the Bible, rather than to the entire Universe. It's about ONE time span, not the entirety of Time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. What 'years' are you talking about?

The ages that Adam, Methuselah etc. lived to?

[Why Syzygy]

4. No.

The time span of the Bible. It's a story of Yaweh and his interactions with the Hebrews/Judeans/Israel. Those times are recorded. No one would take the history of other ancient civilizations and try to fit all matter, space and time into ONE STORY.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. So when do you start, in the bible?

You're excluding the earliest stuff - how long the earliest people mentioned in the bible lived. Is the age of Sarah when she gave birth to Isaac in? That's part of the interaction of Yahweh with the Hebrews, after all. Are you saying the "40 years in the wilderness" should be taken as historically accurate? So far, there hasn't been any archaeological evidence for the exodus from Egypt at all.

[Why Syzygy]

6. This is information

which only recently became available to me. So, I'm not expert. I can dig up some references later. The point is, the Bible was never meant to be interpreted as a science text. It is the STORY of a God and His people. That is finite. When we study physical science, that story is meaningless and never intended to be instructive. What other creation story is used in this way? None of them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Well, religious objections to a shipping channel were raised in India

on the grounds that "Adam's Bridge" was the the bridge built by the Vanara (monkey-men) army of Rama , which he used to reach Sri Lanka and rescue his wife Sita from the Rakshasa king, Ravana, as stated in the Sanskrit epic Ramayana, and so cutting a channel through it would be wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge

But this goes beyond creation stories. It involves ideas of whether humans are special, or whether 'god' has 'a people' at all. This affects animal welfare, vegetarianism, environmentalism, and Middle Eats politics.

[struggle4progress]

17. That really is an astounding feature. There are some satellite photos at the following link:

http://hitxp.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/a-babri-masjid-by-congress/

I have no idea what the archaeological evidence is: even if it is an eroded ridge, it is plausible that it has been more or less above the sea surface from time-to-time, and since vast earth-moving projects done with primitive technology have been encountered elsewhere, it does not seem impossible that in the remote past some group may have attempted to improve portions of it as a transport route. At least, the legendary designation as "bridge" very plausibly suggests the use of the feature as a transport corridor, even if it was never much improved

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. You mean like the legendary designation of The Giant's Causeway very plausibly suggests

the use of the feature as a transport corridor, even if it was never much improved? :rofl:

[struggle4progress]

20. Hmm. I might reach such a conclusion if you can show satellite pictures

of the "Causeway" which suggest it could ease travel between two endpoints, if sea-level were lower, and if you could provide evidence of ancient legends which tell about travel over the "Causeway"

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Certainly:

http://thenorthernirelandguide.co.uk/giants-causeway-and-legend-finn-mccool

Staffa:

Giant's Causeway:

You claim was, of course, 'At least, the legendary designation as "bridge" very plausibly suggests the use of the feature as a transport corridor, even if it was never much improved'. Your 'plausibility' depended on the name, not actual suitability.

[struggle4progress]

26. Apologies if I was unclear. You mentioned upthread religious objection to dredging through

Ram Setu and provided a link indicating that this was a geological feature that must at one time have been a land bridge between India and Sri Lanka. The religious objection that you reference is based on an ancient story (of the sort that I usually consider legend/myth) that tells of the construction of the feature for use as a bridge

I provided a link to a site showing rather interesting satellite pictures; one can also look up the feature in Google Earth, which provides a view in some respects better than those satellite pictures, though Google Earth lacks good pictures of the more open ocean areas. The feature is remarkable, and it seems a credible migration corridor a times of lower sea level. I have no idea how to evaluate the popular notion that the feature was actively engineered, but prehistoric cultures did sometimes do significant engineering of mountaintops (for example) to flatten large areas, and it is not immediately impossible that something like that occurred on parts of Ram Setu -- though that would be an archaeological question. Even as an archipelago, it might have served at times as a convenient corridor, since island-hopping might significantly reduce the personal risk of travel associated with crossing the water in small/flimsy craft

So the feature might naturally be called a "bridge" for several reasons: parts of it really look like a bridge; with low-levels, in the past it has been a bridge; ancient story describes the use of it as a bridge; and it is plausible it has been conceptually regarded as a bridge between its ends, since (even though discontinuous) it might facilitate primitive navigation from one side to the other

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about the Causeway

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. I brought up "Adam's Bridge" as an example of a myth affected real-world decisions

when another poster had asked if it was just the Abrahamic creation myth that was causing problems when it runs up against science. Objections to the channel could have been ecological, or even archaeological if there is anything to the hypothesis that it was man-made - but some Indian politicians made specific religious objections, claiming the myth was reality.

My point about the Giant's Causeway was just a response to the last sentence of yours in your post, in which you seemed to say a 'legendary designation' made the idea plausible. I was trying to get across that the name chosen in a legend doesn't tell us anything about what an object really is - it just tells us what some story-teller thought, perhaps thousands of years ago.

[struggle4progress]

37. But both archaeological and environmental objections have been raised to the dredging.

I'm not competent to judge the Sethusamudram project or to assess the validity of the arguments for it or the objections to it. But all manner of objections have been raised, beyond the religious objection you chose to highlight -- so it's not clear to me that superstition explains the project's problems -- though apparently certain project backers are promoting that point-of-view

Sethusamudram could be a security risk, claims Swamy
Published: January 29,2009
Mumbai
Sethusamudram Shipping Channel could pose a major security risk as it would help terror outfit LTTE to move its base to Kerala coast, Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy claimed today. "It (Setusamudram canal) will help LTTE to move its terrorist and narcotic base to Kerala Coast by a more secure and shorter route," he said delivering a lecture on Ram Setu ... http://www.indopia.in/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/489097/National/1/20/1

Published on 28-01-2008 In World
Viewed 1460 times
SC to Jayalalithaa: approach ASI to declare Rama Setu a national monument
... Dr. S. R. Rao, a pioneer in Marine Archaeology in India has written to the Govt. of India recommending that Rama Setu be declared an Underwater Cultural Heritage Monument and that ASI should undertake further exploration work. http://indiainteracts.com/members/2008/01/28/SC-to-Jayalalithaa-approach-ASI-to-declare-Rama-Setu-a-national-monument/

Posted: Mon, Sep 10 2007. 12:38 PM IST
Economy and Politics
Silence, controversy shroud Sethu project
The ministry calls this project the ‘Suez of the east’, but the Sethusamudram project will save ships a maximum of 24 hours of journey time
Priyanka P. Narain
... Anywhere between Rs300 crore and Rs650 crore has already been spent with little work done, and as the controversy about its economic and ecological viability has deepened, protests have become louder, court cases have increased and the project’s estimated cost has spiralled from Rs2,600 crore to Rs3,500 crore. These figures could not be independently verified because shipping minister T.R. Baalu has placed a gag order on all employees connected with the project ... http://www.livemint.com/2007/09/11001954/Silence-controversy-shroud-Se.html

<Dec 07> Sethu canal sword dangling over Sri Lanka
By Kokila
Thirty eminent Sri Lankan scientists and professionals in a report submitted to the cabinet appointed inter-ministerial committee, have warned that Sri Lanka could be the biggest victim if the Sethu Canal project is implemented. Their conclusions were arrived at after thorough scientific studies over 18 months. Adverse impacts will be on the eco system, marine resources, and environment. Damage to marine resources could be irreparable and marine pollution from ships within the narrow Palk Straits will be an ever present threat to Sri Lanka. Even NEERI feasibility report admitted that a major marine pollution disaster could take place in the event of a marine accident involving tankers. Neither the fish nor marine polluted water respect national boundaries drawn on water. Already ten whales and several dolphins have died due to dredging ... http://www.island.lk/2007/12/03/business8.html

[struggle4progress]

8. Irresolvable debates often result from poorly asked questions. A question is not important, unless

one has some idea what can be done with the answer

When different persons cannot agree about what an answer would mean, it is likely that they do not even hear the same question, though they use the same words, in which case -- no matter how rational everyone is -- nothing like a rational conversation can actually occur. It is rather as if two person attempt to discuss Will's overall character, without ever realizing that one has William Shakespeare in mind and the other William Penn -- or as if they discuss whether they should phone Will Whoever, without ever realizing that one thinks that the question is whether Will is a cool dude to party with and the other that the question is whether Will is a reliable baby-sitter

Philosophical questions seldom if ever lead to definite pragmatic conclusions

One knows how to address a question, like Should we teach evolution in the public school science classes?: one can argue, for example, that it provides an opportunity, not only to introduce a range of different techniques from various disciplines (biology, chemistry, geology, radiophysics) but to test the conclusions of one line of evidence against other (possibly conflicting) lines of evidence; it is pointless to take a stand on whether it is "true" (in some abstract sense), since the object is to develop a coherent theory that is as-consistent-as-possible with respect to current known observations and current physical theory; if a better synthesis becomes available, one will naturally be overjoyed at the progress; and therefore the students are welcome to question "evolution" -- but only if they use an acceptable scientific approach to examine in exhaustive detail some particular alleged "fact"; in this way, regardless of their final "belief" or "disbelief" in evolution, they develop an understanding of currently available tools for reasoning about the physical world

On the other hand, nobody seems to have a good handle on an abstract question, such as Does evolution conflict with Christianity? -- and the question merely seems to provide an empty vessel into which various people simply pour their own fears and prejudices. And, in fact, it is not clear what one would learn from any supposed answer to the question, nor how one could decide whether a supposed answer to the question was really credible, or even how one might go about trying to answer the question without simply chattering about one's preconceptions

[skepticscott]

9. I find it interesting

that three of the commenters (Giberson, Miller and Harris) who were the most strident defenders of of the inherent compatibility of religion and science (or alternately, the most vocal attackers of those who claim they are not compatible) were also three of the most long-winded in making their case, as if they were twisting themselves in every direction trying to make an argument that even they know is shaky at best. The truth, as it usually turns out, needs far fewer words to justify than trying to rationalize irrationality.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Harris's response is satire

It's completely opposite to what he has written before - he is normally grouped with Dawkins, Dennett and others as a 'militant atheist'. It is very long, though - I think he's belabouring his point (that those who think science and religion can be compatible are wrong, and give support to things like homophobia) too much. Giberson and Miller are the authors of the books, so I can't blame them for wanting to make lengthy replies to a long review of their work.

[Jim__]

10. I don't think so.

First, of course, there is the undeniable fact that there are many religious scientists. It's a difficult argument to make that these people don't understand their own religious beliefs, but someone who doesn't hold the beliefs does understand them.

Second, there is Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, which opens with the paragraph:

Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One is a belief in some fundamental cleavage between truths which are analytic, or grounded in meanings independently of matters of fact and truths which are synthetic, or grounded in fact. The other dogma is reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism.

I am aware of Soames argument against this, but based on brief descriptions of his argument (I haven't read his book), his argument seems more to address: (o)ne effect of abandoning them is ... a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science rather than (a)nother effect is a shift toward pragmatism. Indeed, Soames seems to be rejecting the dogmas, but that is precisely what Quine does.

If science is mostly pragmatic, then I don't see why it should be incompatible with a general concept of religion. Also, the scientific method, which is generally described as requiring methodological naturalism, doesn't seem to be incompatible with religion.

[skepticscott]

11. The problem is

that "a general concept of religion" is not how religion is practiced in this country (or anywhere else, for that matter). While it's true in theory that religion need not conflict with science, in practice it virtually always does in some way or another. Any time a religion makes truth claims about the physical world (which most of them can't seem to avoid), it treads on the turf of science, and has the potential to create that conflict. When the Catholic Church says that the host in the Eucharist literally transforms into the body of Christ (as opposed to just symbolizing it), that is not a matter of faith-it's a (demonstrably false) claim about physical reality.

[Why Syzygy]

12. And, that

I believe should be left to the realm of Faith to solve. Faith doesn't need help from science to determine that part of the story said something about "wolves in sheep's clothing". Science is boxing shadows cast by wolves. No one profits.

[Jim__]

29. The problem is that's not the argument made in the OP.

The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail.

An argument against a specific religion and its beliefs is a different argument. My response was to the argument made in the OP.

[skepticscott]

30. I was responding to a specific statement made in your post

If science is mostly pragmatic, then I don't see why it should be incompatible with a general concept of religion.

No problem with that, right?

[Jim__]

32. My post was in response to the OP.

And, specifically, to: The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail.

That's making an argument about religion in general. An argument about religion in general has to be supported by arguments that pertain to religion in general. Specific examples can help to clarify the more general arguemnts. But, specific examples cannot make the general case.

[struggle4progress]

14. If there were a fundamental incompatibility, it should be possible to

find indications of it in the actual practice of science

Are there concrete examples of scientific questions, for which the theological or anti-theological stances of investigators would actually affect the investigation?

I can think of interesting questions that one might ask, and attempt to answer by careful collection of experimental data and subsequent rational analysis, that many people would refuse to investigate, for philosophical reasons -- and some (but not all) of those who would refuse to investigate might give theological reasons for their refusal. For example, one might be interested in the question, To what extent does biochemistry account for the fact that most people do not casually murder other people? It seems like an interesting question, and one could investigate it (for example) by addicting subjects to various habituating drugs and then requiring them to kill a specified person as a precondition for obtaining the next fix. By carrying out a large number of experiments, and biopsying brain tissue of the addicts to compare those who cooperated with those who refused, one might learn something interesting about the biological basis of behavior, if the experiment was well-planned. Since I should refuse to participate in such an experiment on religious grounds, this might be an example of "religion's incompatibility with science" -- but if it is, it is still not a very convincing example, since many people (including quite a few) would react disfavorably to such a "scientific" proposal

The question is, are there any really good concrete examples of this supposed incompatibility between science and religion? Can one find, say, a specific question in chemistry (or physics), that an otherwise competent chemist (or physicist) is demonstrably unable to investigate, as a result of theistic philosophical commitments?

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. The key word may be 'revelatory'

Towards the end of the review, Coyne says:

So the most important conflict--the one ignored by Giberson and Miller--is not between religion and science. It is between religion and secular reason. Secular reason includes science, but also embraces moral and political philosophy, mathematics, logic, history, journalism, and social science--every area that requires us to have good reasons for what we believe. Now I am not claiming that all faith is incompatible with science and secular reason--only those faiths whose claims about the nature of the universe flatly contradict scientific observations. Pantheism and some forms of Buddhism seem to pass the test. But the vast majority of the faithful--those 90 percent of Americans who believe in a personal God, most Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, and adherents to hundreds of other faiths--fall into the "incompatible" category.

The problem occurs when a religion claims a revelation about the nature of the universe, that contradicts what we see in our own existence (eg miracles); and says it is something that cannot be investigated, tested, and perhaps falsified.

[struggle4progress]

16. Your reply suggests that you cannot provide concrete examples to

support the general claim that religion is incompatible with science, and it seems you are attempting to save the claim by broadening it rather than narrowing it

If one can provide specific illustrations of scientific questions, that religious investigators will have special difficulty investigating (compared not non-religious investigators), then I think one should provide such illustrations. If one is unable to illustrate the claim the impartial pursuit of scientific knowledge is especially difficult for investigators who are religious, then no obvious progress results by broadening the claim to investigators who are religious have special difficulties with secular reasoning

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Although I am quoting from the article, and the title of the OP

I will give you your illustration: consciousness. If a faith tells you that a 'soul' exists, and is responsible for our consciousness, and that the soul will exist after a person's physical body has died (and may have existed before any neurons developed in an embryo), but that you shouldn't expect to be able to detect a soul using physical methods, then investigations into the nature of consciousness are severely hampered for a believer.

[struggle4progress]

21. "Consciousness" is at best an extremely general term, and it may even be inexcusably vague

as a purported topic of scientific inquiry. Perhaps you could be more specific about exactly what sort of experiment, and what sort of analysis of the experiment, are precluded by religious belief

The concept "soul" may not be synonymous with "consciousness" in my lexicon. I would be inclined to analyze the concept "soul" in theological terms. I am not sure how to analyze "consciousness" because it is a term I use to describe not only my synthesized awareness through my senses of my immediate surroundings, but also my sensitivity to (inferred) psychological states of people I encounter (based on how I perceive their reactions and interpret those reactions in accordance with my limited and possibly inaccurate knowledge of their circumstances); I also use "consciousness" to describe ideological aspects of my interpretation of the more general social context in which I live. Presumably, you have "direct perception of surroundings" in mind -- but the interesting research into that subject is perhaps that research that shows that such "direct awareness" is "assumed" or "constructed" beyond mere sense data, and it is not clear to me why anyone should think belief or non-belief in a soul affects research, into the mechanisms by which people construct for themselves a "seamless" reality from discontinuous sensory impressions

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. I don't study it myself, but plenty of scientists do

eg http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622810/description#description

[struggle4progress]

24. Ok, so what such topics are likely to be especially difficult for

religious people to study, according to your analysis?

Is it your view, for example, that a religious person would less likely to investigate effectively the question of whether motion changes too small to reach the level of conscious perception affect conscious estimates of travel times?

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Yes

[struggle4progress]

27. uh .. ok .. is there any evidence to support that view, or (absent evidence) can you provide some

cogent argument to support that?

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. It's bascially for the reasons I gave in reply #18

Any believer in a soul that survives death and maintains consciousness is going to have big problems investigating consciousness (unless they participate in spiritualism, I suppose, though I suspect that would make it next to impossible for their work to be taken seriously by the vast majority of scientists). So I think it less likely they will try such investigations as you suggested.

[struggle4progress]

36. The specific example, that I think is under discussion, is investigation

of the difference between (1) perceptions of motion differences that people are aware of noticing and (2) perceptions of motion differences that people are not aware of noticing; the awareness distinction could be made on the basis of self-reporting; the fact that people detected motion, without being aware of it, could be made on the basis of differences in reported travel-time estimates

Such an experiment seems straight-forward enough, and it is unclear why you think the investigators' belief or disbelief in an immortal soul would color the credibility of their results: in particular, if results are reported and discussed with sufficient detail, other investigators should be able to determine whether the experiment is reproducible (or not) and whether the interpretation is credible (or not) -- independent of the religious beliefs of the investigators

It is completely unclear to me why you think the investigators' religious belief or disbelief should influence their ability to conduct research into the possibility that people will show signs of perceiving differences that they are not aware of perceiving

[skepticscott]

28. As far as specific examples

These are a few obvious ones:

How old are the earth and the universe?

How did life get to be the way that we see it?

Is the Shroud of Turin a painting or the burial shroud of Christ?

Do the bread and wine in the Catholic Eucharist actually transform into flesh and blood?

Do human beings have an immortal soul that survives their death?

As far as the general question "Is religion incompatible with science?", that's much too broad a question to give a blanket answer. It is certainly not the case that anything that might qualify as a religion must in principle conflict with science, though it is in practice the case that most manifestations of religion do. As far as whether faith (the sense of that word that means belief in the absence of evidence or even in the face of contradictory evidence) is incompatible with science, that also depends on the question "faith in what?" If scientists accept most truth claims about the physical world only if they have sufficient evidence to do so, but take some religiously based truth claims "on faith", regardless of the evidence or or against them, then there is certainly a dissonance there. And the ultimate issue is not whether individual scientists can accept both at the same time (since many obviously do), but whether they are being scientific when they do.

[struggle4progress]

31. The first question is what constitutes a real scientific question, and here

our views may vary: it is my view that one investigates a scientific question, in the hope of making scientific progress, so a question must be amenable to study by the methods of so-called "natural philosophy" and there must also be some reasonable expectation that some progress is made in the course of answering the question accurately

The age of the earth is an interesting issue. This question can be investigated by "natural philosophy" in such a way that one can actually makes progress, even if an absolute and completely detailed answer never results. As with any other scientific question, one holds investigators to certain standards: those who have made up their minds in advance what answer is acceptable, who cherry-pick or falsify data, or who rely on methods beyond those of "natural philosophy" in investigating the answer, are not a suitable scientific investigators

You appear to object to the "dissonance" that might exist, if someone investigating the age of the earth happened to believe (say) Jesus Christ rose from the dead. But I am not sure what your objection to such dissonance is

Clearly, one wants scientific investigators to be able to recognize potential conflicts between existing intellectual models of the subjects they study and internal contradictions in particular models, their own models included. One also hopes that they make some progress in resolving such dissonance, by improving some models or by discrediting others -- but that typically requires slow and painful work, so that the productive investigator must typically be able to tolerate dissonance as well

On the other hand, almost everyone (scientists included) must accept the fact that different approaches and different intellectual standards govern the different spheres of their experience. A particle physicist may make a good living studying whether certain group-theoretical and statistical calculations suitably explain certain experimental results, and might regard those group-theoretical and statistical calculations as making progress towards "a theory of everything," and might yet still decide not to understand his/her spouse by group-theoretical and statistical calculations -- certainly, there is a dissonance there, in some sense, but the dissonance does not discredit the work. Similarly, I fail to see why you expect the purported dissonance, from a religious conviction such as (say) Jesus Christ rose from the dead, to affect one's ability to study the age of the earth

[skepticscott]

33. Nice straw man

And fancy, (though largely irrelevant) ramble. But I neither said nor implied that any of the scientific questions that I posed would necessarily come into conflict with or be compromised by any tenet of religion that you might choose at random. Of course the belief that Jesus rose from the dead has little or nothing to do with the age of the earth. But if you are unshakably convinced the earth is less than 10,000 years old as a tenet of your religious faith (as many people are), then you are irretrievably compromised in investigating that question scientifically. I won't waste my time pointing out dozens of other examples that anyone spending a few moment's honest thought could come up with.

Next time, try your obfuscation on someone else. It won't fly here.

[struggle4progress]

38. You call my post "a straw man" and "an obfuscation" but repeat back to me

at least one point I made in the post

I wrote that those who have made up their minds in advance what answer is acceptable ... are not suitable scientific investigators

In reply, you lecture: if you are unshakably convinced the earth is less than 10,000 years old as a tenet of your religious faith ... then you are irretrievably compromised in investigating that question scientifically. I won't waste my time pointing out dozens of other examples that anyone spending a few moment's honest thought could come up with

Since that expresses, as your own, a view that I had previously expressed, the most generous interpretation, of your reply (and its claim that my post is "a straw man" or "an obfuscation") will simply be that you did not bother to read carefully what I wrote, before attempting to ridicule it

The OP takes the view, that science is essentially incompatible with a religious faith that countenances revelation. I have attempted to reduce the tendency towards meaningless generality, by suggesting, to those who agree with the view expressed in the OP, that they ought to aim at a more concrete discussion and should identify the particular scientific questions that they think religious persons would be unable to investigate

When I made this suggestion earlier, you provided a short list of topics you thought fit the bill. The first item on that list was the age of the earth. In presenting your list, you wrote If scientists .. some religiously based .. claims "on faith" .. then there is .. a dissonance there. Since your remark occurs in the context of a discussion of the alleged incompatibility of science and religious faith, my interpretation -- and do forgive me if I have misunderstood -- is that you find this dissonance, between an interest in science and a willingness to accept some religiously based claims, to be so problematic that it calls into question the ability of a religious person to do any science; that interpretation closely resembles the stance taken in the OP, with which I argue, so I attempted to respond to your claim as I understood it

I am sorry that you find this tedious, but vague generalities produce no progress: one must deal with gritty details, even in a philosophical conversation -- though (of course) the best that one can expect from philosophy is that one's ideas become clearer

[skepticscott]

40. You're right, you did misunderstand completely

Particularly when you said:

"You appear to object to the "dissonance" that might exist, if someone investigating the age of the earth happened to believe (say) Jesus Christ rose from the dead. But I am not sure what your objection to such dissonance is."

I made no such claim of dissonance between that particular scientific question and that particular tenet of religion, as you well knew when you wrote that response. My "lecture" as you call it, was to point you towards the blazingly obvious religious tenet that would make its believers unable to investigate the question objectively.

and:

"Since your remark occurs in the context of a discussion of the alleged incompatibility of science and religious faith, my interpretation -- and do forgive me if I have misunderstood -- is that you find this dissonance, between an interest in science and a willingness to accept some religiously based claims, to be so problematic that it calls into question the ability of a religious person to do any science; that interpretation closely resembles the stance taken in the OP, with which I argue, so I attempted to respond to your claim as I understood it"

Again, I said nothing about the ability of a religious person to "do any science", but you seem to feel it necessary to put words in my mouth to win a point. You asked (over and over and over) for examples of specific scientific questions that religious people might have trouble investigating objectively, and I supplied just a few of many possibilities. I did not give you "vague generalities", but you seem unable to either acknowledge that those examples meet your requirements or to make a coherent case why they don't.

BTW, what's with this: If scientists .. some religiously based .. claims "on faith" .. then there is .. a dissonance there
They do have cut and paste here, so the only reason to quote me in fragments instead of completely and accurately is to try to misrepresent what I said.

And yes, you are becoming tedious.

[struggle4progress]

41. So, then, the question that I asked at the top of this subthread, namely,

whether those, who claim (as in the OP) that there is a fundamental incongruity between science and religion, can provide concrete examples of scientific questions, for which the theological or anti-theological stances of investigators would actually affect the investigation, appears to remain unanswered, except in the obvious sense: namely, we agree that anyone, who is too strongly prejudiced regarding a potential "answer" to a question that is amenable to scientific treatment, is naturally disqualified as an objective scientific investigator for that question -- but of course the claim made in the OP is much less circumspect and more sweeping than that

So we have not made much progress

[skepticscott]

46. We might make more progress

if you actually read what I had written:

As far as the general question "Is religion incompatible with science?", that's much too broad a question to give a blanket answer. It is certainly not the case that anything that might qualify as a religion must in principle conflict with science, though it is in practice the case that most manifestations of religion do.

And yes, your question was unanswered except in the obvious sense that I answered it with exactly what you asked for. Silly me.

[struggle4progress]

47. Since I was seeking discussion that was more detailed and specific,

vague claims that most manifestations of religion conflict with science do not really clarify anything for me

[laconicsax]

39. I think Daniel Dennet once said something very poignant on the subject.

"They say look, I am a Christian and we Christians, we just have to believe this and that's it. At which point, I guess the polite way of saying it is well, okay, if that's true you'll just have to excuse yourself from the discussion because you've declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind. Now...If you really can't defend your view, then sorry, you can't put it forward. We're not going to let you play the faith card. Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine. But because it says it in the holy book, that just doesn't cut any ice at all. And if you think it does, that's just arrogant. It is a bullying move and we're just not going to accept it."

I'd have to say that religion and science don't occupy non-overlapping magisteria as Gould puts it. Both make claims about the universe in which we exist, the only difference is that one requires you accept its explanations on faith, regardless of the evidence at hand, and the other asks that you accept its explanations based on the evidence at hand. Every time science uncovers more details about the universe that contradict religious explanations, the religious response is to either accept the science and claim that the religious explanation is metaphorical or wrong, or to refute the science based the assertion that since someone wrote it down thousands of years ago, it must be true. It isn't two different ways of approaching an answer, it's two different answers, one of which happens to be patently false.

Religion makes outrageous claims it cannot back up, so why should it be taken seriously? If someone made a claim that a race of subterranean gnomes use invisible strings to pull everything towards the ground, they'd be laughed into obscurity, yet when someone claims that bad things happen because a talking snake tricked a woman into eating some fruit and a 500 year-old man spent 100 years building a boat, rounded up 2-7 of every animal, and used the boat to wait out a global flood, we're supposed to be respectful because they've erected a belief structure around it.

[struggle4progress]

42. So it is your contention that none possibly be a Christian and a good scientist simultaneously

[laconicsax]

43. There are some terms that need defining in what you said.

"Christian" and "good scientist" for example. I'll try to answer your question in spite of this.

I would contend that if you feel that to be a Christian, you absolutely must believe things that have been shown to be false (age of the earth, origin of life, etc.), then in order to be a scientist, you would have to either sacrifice your beliefs or objectivity while conducting research in a field that shows your beliefs to be false.

If you want a more specific answer, you'll need to pose a more specific question (or at least a better defined one).

[struggle4progress]

44. My apologies if I am unclear. The OP links to an Edge article, followed

by various comments: one commentator describes the article (accurately, I think) as a campaign to purge science of religionists in the name of doctrinal purity

You approvingly provide a quote which suggests that the proper response to I am a Christian is if that's true you'll just have to excuse yourself from the discussion because you've declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind

At best, it is unclear to me how sweeping that claim is. Christianity is, of course, a peculiar theological movement, originating in Roman-occupied Judea several thousand years ago, and the early texts describe (inconsistently) events which are conventionally regarded as historical. Even in the ancient world, some of the events alleged in the texts, and the theological interpretation of those alleged events, were often regarded as wildly implausible -- which, I suppose, is entirely understandable, since it is not immediately clear what to think of someone who believes The Master of the Universe decided to visit us all here and was born (under really miserable conditions) as an ordinary human being; after this person reached adulthood, the religious and political authorities disliked him and had him executed as a common criminal, and he died; but after dying, he came back to life forever

Quite a number of people, myself included, profess to believe this tale, to which (quite frankly) the natural reaction will be What?! Are you nuts? That being the natural reaction, the question (to me) seems to be whether anyone, who professes to believe that story, is actually incompetent to proceed with an open mind in scientific investigations. Do not the OP and your Dennett quote both make exactly that general claim of incompetence?

[laconicsax]

45. You cut a bit out of the quote I provided.

The response, "if that's true..." is not to the statement "I am a Christian." The response, "if that's true..." is to the statement "I am a Christian and we Christians, we just have to believe this and that's it."

To start a discussion or debate with a statement like that really does declare the speaker incompetent to proceed. If they left it at, "I am a Christian and we Christians, we just have to believe this," then they are simply defining their religion. Questions of "why must you believe this to be Christian," and questions concerning aspects of those beliefs are still open to discussion. The use of, "and that's it" is a declaration that the matter is settled and there will be no discussion.

As for the story you believe, believing it doesn't automatically declare you incompetent. If you insist, in effect, that absolutely nothing could cause you to examine your belief, then you are declaring that your mind is made up and nothing can change it. I can think of little else that so accurately describes closed-mindedness than such a declaration. To proudly declare a closed mind is to declare oneself incompetence to proceed with an open mind.

As far as scientific inquiry, I would say that if someone believes, for example, that the universe was created in six 24-hour days 6000 years ago and rigidly holds to that belief, then it its highly likely that they will be unable to objectively perform research in most scientific disciplines. The same could be said for any other religious belief that can be (or has been) proven false. I would not extend this, however, to beliefs that cannot be shown to be at odds with reality.

If you, like many moderate and liberal Christians, are willing to change your interpretation of events in the Bible from literal to metaphorical when it becomes evident that a literal interpretation is at odds with reality (that is, evidence directly shows it to be false), then you show yourself to have an open mind about your beliefs and I would not automatically suspect them to interfere with your ability to objectively conduct research.

You would have to ask Dennett how broadly his statement applies. He made it in reference to discussion in general, not scientific inquiry, but I feel that it applies as I've stated above.