[Vision2020] Does Science and Religion Conflict?

[Ted Moffett]

Wayne, et. al.

Darwins Beagle focuses on rather obvious conflicts between science and some
religious beliefs or statements from certain religions, an easy path to back
up the "conflicting worlds" view of this issue.  It's obvious, also, that a
definition of what religion is, a subject about which there will be wide
disagreement, needs to be established before proceeding with answering the
fundamental question posed.

There are religions that attempt a harmony of science and religion that do
not demand people believe in virgin births or the claims in genesis about
creation, nor are all these religions theistic, which appears to be the
focus of Darwin Beagle's article.  The religion of Baha i makes an attempt
at harmonizing religion and science, but as to whether they succeed is
another question:

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-18.html

But I agree with Darwin Beagle's rejection of the strict exclusionary
dichotomy of science dealing with how the universe works, and religion
dealing with Ethics.  This is an immensely complex problem that is not so
easily summarized.  I think Ethics can tell us something about how the
universe works, for example, the impulse to care for and
protect family among homo sapian sapian reveals that group cooperation was a
tremendous survival advantage in evolution.  So compassion and the ethical
principles about not inflicting violence on members of our own species can
be understood as an evolutionary development.  Also, the impulse to
coordinate in groups to inflict violence on competing groups over scare
resources reveals that this impulse had survival advantages in evolution,
perhaps resulting in the more "advanced" groups of organisms surviving in
these conflicts, resulting in the development of conflicting impulses to
"ethically justify" inflicting harm, a conflict in the human species we see
continuing in the extreme today.  So I see some overlapping between science
and Ethics in exploring the evolutionary basis of human development and why
we have some of the Ethical principles we do, though I do think there are
Ethical questions that science cannot answer, and from the point of view of
some Ethical systems, science has nothing to say about Ethics, and vice
versa.

The religious impulse in human beings may be partly explained by the
structure of our brain, indeed, some think we are neuronally hard wired to
become "God struck."  So science may be able to explore why human beings are
so oriented toward religious belief as a fundamental aspect of life, beyond
the more psychological explanations that religion provides relief to the
despair over the death of loved ones, and the realization of our own
deaths, leading to the construction of belief systems that allow us to live
forever, one of the most common focuses of religion belief.

I think "spirituality," which some distinguish from the social systems of
organized dogmatic religion, can exist side by side with science without
conflict.  Indeed, I am inclined to think that nature worship, which can be
profoundly "spiritual" in feeling and wonder, though perhaps not defensible
as an ultimate ethical principle derived from the essential structure of the
universe or from a God, can be in perfect harmony with science, and in fact
may be the sort of spirituality that is needed to be adopted more widely in
our current world for the very survival of our species.  Perhaps this is, as
Darwin Beagle claims, solving the conflicting worlds view of science and
religion by turning religion into something we do not now call "religion,"
though nature worshippers of various traditions might strenuously object.

Ted Moffett


On 2/9/07, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  Does Science and Religion Conflict?
>
> I have been reading Luthien's blog on evolution and creationism:
>
>
> http://www.progressiveu.org/183317-science-has-a-bone-or-several-to-pick...<http://www.progressiveu.org/183317-science-has-a-bone-or-several-to-pick-with-creationism>
>
> Initially I had thought of responding to him there but after consideration
> I decided that what I had to say was substantial enough to warrant a blog
> all its own. It also only addresses a small portion of Luthien's otherwise
> very good post, and I did not want to hijack his thread.
>
> Michael Shermer in his book How We Believe describes a three tiered view
> of looking at the relationship between science and religion:
>
> (1) The Conflicting Worlds Model. This model says that science and
> religion is in conflict. They are different views of the universe and they
> come to irreconcilably different views. If one is right then the other is
> wrong.
>
> (2) The Same Worlds Model. This model says that science and religion are
> not in conflict. They are different ways of looking at the universe but they
> both are valid. Since "truth" cannot contradict "truth", they cannot be in
> conflict. Any apparent conflict then is due to our lack of understanding
> what the real "truth" of at least one of those views is.
>
> (3) The Different Worlds Model. This model says that science and religion
> is not in conflict for the simple reason that the world of science is
> completely separated from the world of religion. Religion tells us how to go
> to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go.
>
> At one time or another in my life I have advocated all three views. After
> giving it a great deal of thought I believe the Conflicting Worlds Model is
> ultimately correct. The only way to avoid conflict is to change religion or
> science into something that we not call religion or science now.
>
> First, let me deal with the Different Worlds Model. This view was
> championed by a person I have a great deal of respect for, Stephen Jay
> Gould. Gould called it NOMA for Non Overlapping MAgisteria. Gould said that
> science deals with mechanisms of how the universe works. Relgion deals with
> ethics. Quite a few scientists and theologians have advocated this. I call
> this the Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along" appeal. I think it is
> too simplistic.
>
> Certainly science does deal with explanatory mechanisms behind the
> workings of the natural world. But science can in principle investigate any
> phenomenon affecting the natural world. So when religion says that God
> answers prayers, for instance, science can investigate that claim. If
> religion says that it is possible for a human male to be born of a virgin,
> science can investigate that. If religion says that the earth was created in
> 6 days, science can test that too. If religion tells us that God must have
> made the universe then science can investigate that too.
>
> Furthermore, I see no reason that ethics necessarily be conceded to the
> sole province of religion. I think non-religious institutions, including
> science can yield useful insights into ethics.
>
> Some people say that science cannot prove God existence one way or the
> other. That is too simplistic. Suppose that on December 24th there the
> bright red star in the constellation of Orion, Betelguese (pronounced
> "Beetle Juice") undergoes a supernova (as astronomers say it will one day in
> the not too distant cosmological future). Suppose also we turn our
> telescopes toward it and see in perfect Times Roman font "Peace on Earth,
> Good Will Toward Men – Love God" written in the cosmic dust of the
> explosion. I doubt if any proponent of the NOMA philosophy would claim that
> isn't evidence that God actually exists.
>
> Already some theists have speculated about doing DNA analysis on the
> supposed blood stains on the Shroud of Turin. What if it shows that there is
> two sets of DNA. One with an X chromosome that looks just like normal
> everyday human chromosomes and another that includes the Y chromosomes in
> which there is no excess DNA. The genes don't have introns, pseudogenes, ALU
> repeats, endogenous retroviruses, or any of the other apparent junk normally
> found in our genome. That would be scientific evidence not only for Jesus's
> existence, but for his supernatural paternity as well.
>
> So it is certainly possible to get scientific evidence supporting God's
> existence. What about evidence for God's nonexistence. That can be done as
> well.
>
> Really?? Isn't proving a negative impossible? Yes and No. I will agree
> that we cannot possibly rule out the existence of all conceivable Gods, but
> we can rule out the existence of certain Gods. Anytime one says something
> about God's character, then there are logical ramifications that can be
> subjected to scrutiny. If the characteristics do not stand up to scrutiny
> then a God with that type of characteristic can reasonably be ruled out. The
> only god that science can say nothing about is one that has no interaction
> with the universe what-so-ever. If such a god exists then at best it is
> irrelevant to anything in our lives.
>
> So then we are left with either the Same Worlds Model or the Conflicting
> Worlds Model. I have many friends who are atheists and I have many friends
> who are theists. Every theist I am friends with would support the Same
> Worlds Model, every atheist would support the Conflicting Worlds Model.
> Interestingly there are theists who support the Conflicting Worlds Model
> too. These are the fundamentalists and I am not on particularly good terms
> with them. While I reject religion in favor of verifiable science, they
> reject the science in favor of religion. Even though we are diametrically
> opposed on most things, I do give them credit for holding a logically
> consistent position.
> The problem I have with my theistic friends is that their apologetics seem
> to be ad hoc and strained. Let's take the Genesis 1 account of creation as
> an example. Genesis 1 says the earth was created in 6 specific days. My
> theistic friends say that must be read allegorically. "Evening and morning,
> the [first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth] day" doesn't REALLY mean a
> 24 hour day. It means an unspecified length of time that could really be
> billions of years long.
>
> Why do they say that? The answer is because if you think of it as a 24
> hour day then it is obviously wrong. A few of the more studied theists say
> that even the early church fathers didn't view "day" as being 24 hours long
> either. That actually is true. They thought of it as being a period of a
> thousand years. Why? Because in Genesis 2 there is a second story of
> creation … the Adam and Eve one.
>
> In that story God tells Adam that if he partakes of the fruit of knowledge
> of good and evil that in that day he will die. Adam does eat of it but lives
> another 930 years. So to overcome inconsistency they said that when God said
> "day" he meant "1000 years". That must have been among the first of the ad
> hoc apologetics to come along.
>
> But even if you believe as the early church fathers did you get the age of
> the universe at 12,000 years instead of 6,000. You are still off by a factor
> of a million.
>
> Even if you let "day" be meaningless, then you have the problem of coming
> up with something meaningful as to what creation of light (day 1), creation
> of firmaments (day 2), creation of dry land and plants (day 3), creation of
> Sun, Moon, and Stars (day 4), creation of fish and birds (day 5), creation
> of land animals and humans (day 6), and rest (day 7) mean.
>
> My theistic friends are able to do it. They do it a number of different
> ways. They do it by making things mean what no one would normally thing they
> mean. I find this intellectually dishonest. They are intentionally fooling
> themselves. It is clear what the intent of the author of many biblical
> stories was. It has also become clear that the bible is wrong in many
> instances. The only reason to claim otherwise is to reconcile obvious wrong
> findings.
>
> I think religion DOES make specific testable claims about the nature of
> the universe. I think science says many of these claims do not withstand
> scrutiny. The claims that do not withstand scrutiny are numerous enough and
> of sufficient importance that I think science and religion is basically
> incompatible. If one is right then the other is wrong. I choose science.
>
> Regards,
>
> Darwin's Beagle
>
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070209/170a4620/attachment.html