<div> </div>
<div>Wayne, et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-18.html">http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-18.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/9/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Art Deco</b> <<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div>
<h2>Does Science and Religion Conflict?</h2>
<div>
<div>
<p>I have been reading Luthien's blog on evolution and creationism:</p>
<p><a title="http://www.progressiveu.org/183317-science-has-a-bone-or-several-to-pick-with-creationism" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.progressiveu.org/183317-science-has-a-bone-or-several-to-pick-with-creationism" target="_blank">
http://www.progressiveu.org/183317-science-has-a-bone-or-several-to-pick...</a></p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>Michael Shermer in his book How We Believe describes a three tiered view of looking at the relationship between science and religion:</p>
<p>(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.
</p>
<p>(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.
</p>
<p>(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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
<br>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Darwin's Beagle</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p></div></div></div></div><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>