Debate:Is all religion incompatible with science?

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(To respond to the title of the debate: I'm not sure that a religion without supernatural elements would be a religion)
(To respond to the title of the debate)
Line 123: Line 123:
 
:::::::Actually, I'm not sure that a religion without supernatural elements would be a religion. No Gods, no worship of those gods, no religious explanation for the origin of the world, no afterlife.  One could certainly create a philosophy which included (for some reason) rituals which aped religious ones, but that wouldn't make it a religion.
 
:::::::Actually, I'm not sure that a religion without supernatural elements would be a religion. No Gods, no worship of those gods, no religious explanation for the origin of the world, no afterlife.  One could certainly create a philosophy which included (for some reason) rituals which aped religious ones, but that wouldn't make it a religion.
 
:::::::But the point is moot anyway.  Existing religions have these magic, supernatural elements and that surely puts them in conflict with science which, by it's nature, does not recognise them.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 07:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 
:::::::But the point is moot anyway.  Existing religions have these magic, supernatural elements and that surely puts them in conflict with science which, by it's nature, does not recognise them.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 07:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 +
::::::::This seems obvious to me: religion is based on supernatural explanations of the natural world, ergo it is not scientific [[User:Silvermute|Silvermute]] ([[User talk:Silvermute|talk]]) 09:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:07, 13 August 2009

Debate.JPG This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by ListenerX.


Good read. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with PZ Myers on this one. New Atheists FTW! - Clepper
These individuals are a disgrace to the name of science. Darwin had it right in that quote at the end of the article. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call them a disgrace. The "New Atheist" approach definitely won't win, though. It's the Darwin approach, "gradual illumination of men's minds", that will actually work. Confrontation is great for keeping people on both sides of the issue motivated, and since the religious outnumber the science advocates, confrontation seems to favor the religious. One of several reasons that I reject the label "atheist" is that it makes talking to and understanding religious people much easier. If they've already branded you as their enemy, their instincts will tell them to fight rather than listen. OneForLogic 199.46.199.231 16:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
People who try to drag science into ideological battles that really have nothing to do with science at all, no matter if the scientists are personally in agreement with them or not, are simply trying to exploit the credentials of scientists for their own cause. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
People who bar scientific inquiry into ideological battles are simply trying to exploit barriers that don't exist. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
There is quite a definite barrier between science and speculative philosophy, and philosophers-of-science have given us quite a good characterization of this barrier. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh the philosophers of science say so? Gee, I guess that settles it... Exploit the credentials of scientists much? — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(1) I dislike this fact, but most philosophers-of-science are not scientists. (2) I think the characterization in question is good without regard to who made it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever makes you feel good... which is exactly what I think is root of the problem. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
When what is at stake in those ideological battles IS science, it makes no sense to say "we should leave science out of this." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does; similarly, the State is not allowed to be dragged into a battle on behalf of secularism, though it be secular and secularism is at stake in the battle. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Chill out, guys. Whether you accept NOMA or not, abuses pretty clearly happen on all sides, by scientists, philosophers, religious fanatics, all of them. Oh, and just in case anyone was curious, I'm deliberately not logging in because my employer uses a keylogger and I don't want them to have my password. OneForlogic 199.46.199.232 17:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that a clash between the worldviews of science and religion is pretty much inevitable.--BobNot Jim 17:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Insofar that some religions make factual claims contradicting scientific findings, that is true. However, the aim of the New Atheists appears to be to attack any religion that is not atheism for being "unscientific." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
All religions make claims unsupported by scientific findings, which is why all religions are unscientific. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No one except an evidentialist YEC would state otherwise. By "unscientific" the New Atheists mean that such religions are incompatible with science, which involves making factual claims contradicting scientific findings. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you implying that you have scientific findings which evidence the compatibility of science and religion? — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(UI)The new atheists are less concerned, as I see it, that religions are unscientific, than that they are destructive to society in general. They can be as unscientific as they want, but when they start passing laws based on those views, there's a problem. Z3rotalk 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I am saying that there are plenty of religions that make no claims that are in any way testable by science, which means that these religions are fully compatible with science. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't accept that claims wholly unsupported by science are compatible with science. Scientific compatibility necessitates scientific evidence. Obviously, we're operating with different conceptions of what "science" is. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we're getting down to a philosophical debate on what value we should attribute to claims that cannot yet be tested by science. Trent and I started a bit of a discussion on the merits of logical positivism (basically, the notion that not-currently-testable claims have no value) way back when I first started my account here and never really finished it. Debate:Logical positivism, anyone? OneForlogic 199.46.199.231 18:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(EC) How is, to take an example, pantheism incompatible with science? How can you find out, using science, that the universe is not God? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I think you're just being unscientific in asking me for a negative proof. I'd note that under your definition, Last Thursdayism is completely compatible with science. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that the general rejection of Last Thursdayism by mainstream scientists is far more a practical decision than anything else. This, too, might one day be testable. OneForlogic 199.46.199.231 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you're just being unscientific in asking me for a negative proof. I am trying to demonstrate that pantheism and the scientific models can be true at the same time, which is what the word "compatible" means. As to Last Thursdayism, it is also entirely compatible with all scientific observations, and can never be falsified, though philosophers have given us compelling reasons to disregard it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, pantheism and scientific models can be true at the same time, but without any evidence to believe so, it's unscientific. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Certainly pantheism is unscientific. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Barring evidence to the contrary, yes. That's what I've been saying. If you have nothing, it can't be science. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
My complaint is that the New Atheists are incorrectly conflating the terms "unscientific" and "incompatible with science." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel that the conflation is correct. We're hinging on the definition of "compatibility"...semantic debates are no fun :( — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(UNINDENT) Webster's dictionary: "compatible": "capable of existing together in harmony; esp., compatible theories." Theories (as distinct from their promoters) can exist together in harmony so long as they do not contradict each other. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And I see unsupported assertions as being contrary to (i.e. contradicting) science. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You know, I've never really understood this. Why is it necessary to state it to the world ("(UNINDENT)") when you unindent the thread? I always just do it without any declaration. OneForlogic 199.46.240.168 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Webster's dictionary: "science": "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance...", which I think excludes neutrality...but I hate this argument by definition shite. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(EC2) No, no, they just impugn the unsupported assertion that "there is nothing beyond what we obtain from reason and observation." An assertion that, you seem to think, is incompatible with science. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not. That's a ludicrous straw man. I never said that there is nothing beyond what we can obtain from reason and observation. I said that what we cannot obtain from reason and observation is not science. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No. You said that what we cannot obtain from reason and observation is incompatible with science. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No. Combined with my admission of conflation, that'd make that a 'yes'. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I will quote you now: "I see unsupported assertions as being contrary to (i.e. contradicting) science." If all unsupported assertions contradict science, then science must hold to the statement that no unsupported assertions are true. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully what is below will help you understand how much of a mis-characterization that is... — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's say pantheism is true. We don't know it's true, but it is, although we have no evidence for it whatsoever. That's a given. I would still argue that not only is pantheism unscientific, but pantheism is still incompatible with science because there is no "knowledge" to speak of, only ignorance. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you still hold to that statement if "pantheism" were replaced in it with "atheism"? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Under your definition of "atheism" (which I think is close to strong atheism?), yes. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Go and shout that "atheism is incompatible with science" (whether that atheism be strong or weak) among any circle of people who are not creationists. See how far you get. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I think most people harbor the same misconceptions you do, so I think I'd get pretty far, right? — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think I'd like that back. (My) atheism is not really compatible with science because it's not really anything. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

EZ edit button

I hedge my description of logical positivism with terms like "yet" and "currently" because I'm not sure how we're supposed to know whether or not some claim like that might be testable in the future. With a proper definition of "God" (or "god") and a sufficient understanding of the fundamental structure of the universe (see quantum field theory ((what!? no article on QFT?)) vs. string theory) it seems plausible to me that it might one day be possible to test such a claim, even if it isn't possible now. OneForlogic 199.46.199.231 18:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "New Atheists" are like the black civil-rights leaders or the early feminists - they need to make a noise to get the issue taken seriously. They often got up peoples' noses but without them nothing would have happened. Some people may not like Dawkins, Hitchens & Harris but without them the NOMA appeasers would get swept aside. Religionists are only too quick to insert their agenda into the public policy arena and secular organisations need to be on their guard to stop their wedge strategies. And let us not forget that Dawkins is not just a de facto atheist he is also a defender of reason against the woo charlatans. Finally - ATHEISM IS NOT A FUCKIN' RELIGION! Some may think that certain atheists may adopt similar approaches to fundamentalist religionists but that is because they are just people and not because they are atheist. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 18:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(EC) The pseudoscientific bunk aside, there are true statements that can never be deduced from reason and observation; this we know. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Considering things like that, we have to remember that it is possible to be completely neutral to a claim (neither accepting nor rejecting it). This is my default state on pretty much everything. I think there may be a subtle creep of false dichotomy in this discussion: an assumption that everyone must either accept or reject every claim. OneForlogic 199.46.199.232 18:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I was actually becoming worried about the same thing. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I also think neutrality is quite a viable option, though it leaves a person ripe to be assailed by a fanatic who thinks that neutrality means rejection. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it leaves a person ripe to be assailed by a fanatic who thinks neutrality means they are being scientific in acceptance. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we then be neutral on fairies and goblins as well as the existence of God?--BobNot Jim 19:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of people who are neutral on all three. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality gets attacked unfortunately often from all sides. Fanatics of all kinds tend to adopt a "either you're with us or you're against us" mentality that makes neutrals as much the enemy as the opposite side. OneForlogic 199.46.199.232 19:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
While agnosticism is a very defensible position to take, it is not the same as neutrality - at least as I understand it. I would say that neutrality suggests a 50/50 position. Agnosticism, I would suggest, does not. One can be agnostic because one is not completely sure - but one can be 99.9 percent sure. This is the case with invisible unicorns and fairies. My certainty of the non-existence of invisible unicorns is as close as possible to 100%. But I am not neutral on the issue.--BobNot Jim 19:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This kind of hair-splitting is why I try to avoid using the term "agnostic" and do not accept it as a valid label for myself. When I say that I am neutral to a claim, I am not discussing or intending to suggest anything about any levels of certainty or uncertainty. I use the term to mean that I have no reason to reject the claim and no reason to accept it, so I do neither. OneForlogic 199.46.199.231 19:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To respond to the title of the debate

To respond to what I see is now the title of what has become a debate page: could anybody tell me some beliefs which could only be held as a consequence of religious thought and which are 100% compatible with scientific explanations? Perhaps there are some, and in such a case the answer to the question, as posed, would be, "no".--BobNot Jim 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean like (from a scientific viewpoint) "Right for the wrong reasons"? Interesting... — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
How about the idea that beings can be deified by the act of worship and thereafter act upon the world in conformance with natural law? That is right out of religious thought but does not contradict any Naturalistic Presuppositions either. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that conflict with methodological naturalism at some point?--BobNot Jim 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No, since the supernatural entities act in conformance with natural law, it is irrelevant to any scientific question whether or not they exist, as the observable events would be the same whether they existed or not. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
But if they are both "defied" and "act on the world" then they have acted. And consequently I can't see how you can say, "the observable events would be the same whether they existed or not". Their (possibly supernatural) actions will have changed observable events.--BobNot Jim 21:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Consider, for the sake of argument, a spinning wheel mounted on an axle reaching through a wall, which is attached to an engine on the other side. You can see the wheel spinning, but can in no wise observe the engine. Now if a man came up on the other side of the wall, and started turning the wheel at exactly the same speed, you would observe nothing to indicate that the engine was no longer at work, but the man would instead be acting upon the wheel. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, but I'm not quite sure what this proves. I was presumably unaware before of the motive force and I am still unaware of the motive force. (Or I was previously aware and I'm now mistaken.) I am aware however of the fact that an action is taking place. But so what? I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure what you are driving at. There is a real-world activity here and methodological naturalism automatically puts a supernatural explanation beyond the pale. It's not scientific by definition.--BobNot Jim 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even sure I believe that there is such a thing as a belief "which could only be held as a consequence of religious thought". I would imagine that one could arrive at pretty much any crazy belief any human has ever come up with a variety of ways, and I would further imagine that not all of those ways would involve "religious thought". I'm also not sure that the title of the debate as written is even a useful question to answer, though, and I'm not interested in arguing about exactly what "religious thought" means or anything like that. I think that it's entirely possible to arrive at a true claim through faulty reasoning, as Neveruse suggested. OneForLogic 199.46.199.231 20:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this debate, in part, goes back to exactly what is science, and what is a scientific statement. "The sky is blue", would that be considered a scientific statement? First, I think scientific statements and religious ideas must be defined, lest everyone talk past each other. Z3rotalk 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that all religions must, at some level, have a supernatural element. Science explicitly eschews supernatural elements.--BobNot Jim 20:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It would be possible to create a religion that didn't. The pseudo-worship of Eris, for example, basically precludes any real beliefs. One could easily start a religion around science and rationality (The French Revolution kind of tried...) but the trouble is that establishing a religion causes ossification of the current situation.
If you were to start a "religion" around Einstein, it might start off with the best of intentions but would quickly be taken over by the equivalent of teh Assfly.
My sister and her husband are both devout Christians (much as I hate to admit it) but they're both of the sane wing of the group, and are absolutely horrified by what CP has to offer as "Christian" teaching.
The truth is that belief is like the irrational numbers: you can divide it and divide it as much as you want and create a schism about even the most trivial points. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure that a religion without supernatural elements would be a religion. No Gods, no worship of those gods, no religious explanation for the origin of the world, no afterlife. One could certainly create a philosophy which included (for some reason) rituals which aped religious ones, but that wouldn't make it a religion.
But the point is moot anyway. Existing religions have these magic, supernatural elements and that surely puts them in conflict with science which, by it's nature, does not recognise them.--BobNot Jim 07:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems obvious to me: religion is based on supernatural explanations of the natural world, ergo it is not scientific Silvermute (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support