Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Its War!

Entry 715, on 2008-03-06 at 21:06:49 (Rating 3, Religion)

Many people believe there is a war between religion and science. Many others (both believers and scientists) deny this and say the two are compatible because they deal with separate areas of human knowledge. I have accepted both answers to this question at different times but now I think I have the ultimate answer.

One problem associated with evaluating this idea is turning science and religion into single monolithic structures. There are many forms of religion, and while science is ideally a single unit individual scientists are not. So it turns out that the vast majority of science isn't at war with religion but a large part of religion *is* at war with science.

So how do I justify this conclusion? Well science involves the pursuit of objective truth through a rigorous process of hypothesising, testing, and modifying theories. It follows this course independently of religious belief (at least it should, but especially earlier in science's history, religion did get in the way). If a scientific theory supports religious belief that's fine, it just doesn't matter. Equally if a scientific theory contradicts religion we just don't care (or shouldn't) because its the pursuit of truth that really matters.

So saying that science is at war with religion doesn't really make sense. Science just doesn't care about religion, so how can it be at war with it? This isn't 100% true because there are some situations where religion does matter. Some scientists are specifically targeting religion for criticism (Richard Dawkins is the obvious example) but that's not really science causing the conflict because while Dawkins criticises religion from a scientific perspective its not really science he's doing at the time.

There are also branches of science which study religion. For example, psychologists find the phenomenon interesting. But in that situation they are studying religion as a psychological phenomenon, hopefully in an objective way, so again it can't really be said that science is at war, even if the conclusions of the research are negative towards religion.

One area where science might be said to be at war with religion is related to fundamental world views. I know some people will debate this with me but you can't support religion (in any recognisable form) if you have an objective scientific empiricist world view. Religious people must have a faith based world view to some extent and science specifically rejects this because it almost inevitably leads to false beliefs.

So really science isn't at war with religion at all. The scientific method rejects ignorance through lack of critical thought and rejects any world view which leads to this, but that isn't really like being at war. The reality is that science is never really at war with anything, it just follows the established protocols for establishing objective truth without any requirement for conflict (at least in an ideal world).

But what about religion's alleged war with science? Well that's a different thing entirely. There are religious people who fully accept science and think they are compatible but I think they are just fooling themselves. To make the two compatible you have to either make your religious views so indistinct that they become almost meaningless or create some artificial barrier between the two worlds, when only one of the worlds really exists!

So apart from the people who have created an artificial "demilitarised zone" in their lives there is a war between religion and science but it only happens in one direction. Religion has historically claimed to have the answers to the great mysteries of the world. When Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Hubble, Planck, and others came along and showed the religious explanations of the world were pathetically wrong it meant religion had to either become irrelevant or begin a battle.

The most obvious example is the war against evolution. Science proved that religious explanations of the origin and development of life are untrue. That wasn't because it wanted a war with religion, its because it wanted to find out what is true. But many religions couldn't accept that (although I know many other religions do) so they started a war against evolution. They weren't interested in the truth, or what was best or what was moral, they just wanted to destroy the threat.

Many moderate believers will say that I'm talking about the behaviour of fundies and pretending that applies to all religious people. Well that's not quite right. I know many religious people accept evolution, but they can't accept all of science or they couldn't be religious. They have to reject something. Maybe its the Big Bang, evolution, global warming, the need for contraception, the need for stem cell research, the results of research into religious phenomena, the naturalist world view, or just the scientific method in general.

If you accept all of that what's left to be religious about? Nothing really. So religion can only survive by resisting science so there is a war but its a one way war which religion can never win. They say the first casualty of war is the truth, and in the war by religion on science that has never been more true. But truth has a way of establishing itself in the end. Its just a matter of how long it is before religion loses the war.

Comment 1 (1241) by Anonymous on 2008-03-08 at 15:46:09:

Maybe you should concentrate on the war between atheism and religion instead of science against religion. I think you will find that is more relevant.

Comment 2 (1243) by SBFL on 2008-03-10 at 00:53:54:

This is a bit of a non-post. No war exists between religion and science in one direction or the other. The war on terrorism is more real than this pathetic speculation. Why? Because science and religion are compatible!! Or rather they can be. OJB pre-empts the claim of classifying religion with the fundies, but that is exactly the argument he makes. He tries to discount this with "I know many religious people accept evolution, but they can't accept all of science or they couldn't be religious.". Well science isn't a religion, and it isn't a consensus, so what he means by "all science" has to be under question.

Back to the drawing board bro. I think you are trying to create conflict where none exists.

PS Also apparently Richard Dawkins accepts the possibility of ID.

Comment 3 (1245) by SBFL on 2008-03-10 at 01:35:41:

It is important to note that 'science' is not an exact science, and is subject to opinions and theories just like religion is. OJB fails to grasp this and therefore equates the apparent logic behind science with the logic that atheism supports. For example, a year or so ago there was much fanfare in the news over the discovery of a new species of human being as a result of the finding of a midget in Indonesia or somewhere. I admit being scarce on the details. Just the other day on the news I heard that this apparent new species was in fact not a new species but a caveman afflicted by dwarfism. Well who knows what the truth is but theories abound.

Society's interpretation of religion can be wrong (the world is flat initially comes to mind). But in fact religion is not so much about scientific facts as it is about how we live our lives. This is why OJB gets carried away. I have pointed out that science is not just about logic but is limited in its logic and it grows from future knowledge. Hardly exact, let alone clear cut. Religion is about the individual, not science. That is why they are not incompatible. On Christianity, faith is all about living a life based on the teachings of Jesus. Forgiveness, love, respect and tolerance. Bring it on, and as for science, bring that on too. Learning and knowledge is all good. A war? Your decision warmonger.

Comment 4 (1254) by OJB on 2008-03-10 at 11:06:37:

I think you are wrong: there is a war, and science and religion aren't compatible. I agree that the phrase I used "they don't accept all science" probably wasn't really the best way to put it. What I should have said was that religions must reject important (and well accepted) scientific theories if they are going to take their faith seriously.

We could discuss some of the things your faith requires which are contradictory to science at some future date if you wish.

If you read Richard Dawkin's books and listen to his interviews you will understand the point he is making. I'm afraid that relying on nonsensical sources like Investigate magazine its unlikely to lead you to the point where you understand more of the reality of the situation.

The fact that scientific theories are never 100% proven is an escape route religious people often use, but it is a weak point made out of desperation. All theories evolve over time and debates over small points aren't relevant in the bigger scheme of things.

This idea that Christianity is about "forgiveness, love, respect and tolerance" is nonsense. Whose interpretation of those words do we use? Just about every philosophical, social, political and religious group make that claim, yet they have contradictory views. They can't all be right!

The fundies in the US reject evolution and push creationism instead. That's what I mean by war. The Pope tells physicists that they shouldn't be investigating the origin of the Universe. Maybe that's not a full scale war, but its at least a skirmish!

Comment 5 (1268) by SBFL on 2008-03-16 at 22:43:26:

Not an escape route, not desperation. We don't see conflict, we embrace science. Did you not read my comment above?

"The fundies in the US reject evolution and push creationism instead. That's what I mean by war." Did you? Why don't you say so then? Now who's using an escape route?

"The Pope tells physicists that they shouldn't be investigating the origin of the Universe." I missed that press release sorry....

Comment 6 (1270) by OJB on 2008-03-17 at 14:56:14:

The original incident of this type was from John Paul II reported by Stephen Hawking in 2006. I saw it on the USA Today web site. There has been at least one similar incident since (involving the current Pope) but I haven't tracked down the origin of that yet. I'm only talking about major, obvious incidents here, not the many small and seemingly inoffensive counter-science beliefs.

Comment 7 (1276) by SBFL on 2008-03-19 at 00:19:47:

"I saw it on the USA Today web site." - Then link it, please!!

Here is a link from .Reuters, July 2007 that you should read. Some extracts:
"The Pope, speaking as he was concluding a holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there was much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God."
and
"This clash [between creationism and evolution] is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

But he said evolution did not answer all the questions. "Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question: 'Where does everything come from?"'

So brother, do you accept that there is at least some common ground? Your views and mine are not completely mutually exclusive. Can we work together to put views into perspective, or shall we continue to take extreme and opposite views, to no avail?

Comment 8 (1287) by OJB on 2008-03-19 at 19:38:20:

I will to try to link in future. But that one was some text I copied and saved from the web a year ago, so I wouldn't have been able to link it anyway.

I'm actually quite impressed with what he said in that particular speech. But I disagree with this: "Above all it [evolution] does not answer the great philosophical question: 'Where does everything come from?" The implication is that religion does, but it doesn't. And evolution has nothing to do with the origin of anything, so the whole comment is irrelevant.

On balance, I do appreciate the Catholic view on scientific subjects, but I still reserve the right to criticise the church when I think its appropriate. If the church was secure in its beliefs it wouldn't feel so threatened by criticism, satirical tv programs and amusing products.

This blog is about debate. What's the point in discussing things we agree about? What it gets down to is this: I don't like religion because it imposes arbitrary rules based on mythology. Why not stick with reality instead?

Comment 9 (1290) by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 00:19:52:

"criticise the church when I think its appropriate." - absolutely.

"it wouldn't feel so threatened by criticism" - hmmm, is 'threatened' the right word here?

"satirical tv programs and amusing products." - lets dispense with the euphemisms. You should be saying "images of a statue of the Virgin Mary that begins to bleed—out of its anus, and a body cream called 'Get Tight with Christ' with packaging including a picture of Christ flanked by two adoring women.". Well the second one is just silly but the first is revolting, as even Helen Clark stated. You mentioned earlier about criticism where it is appropriate - I am now concerned about your definition of 'appropriate'.

"This blog is about debate". I know OJB, I was just trying to reach out on an issue we don't agree on. But clearly you prefer to be negative. Shame. By the way people who take a hardline view and sound like are broken record are also boring. They learn little and thus never have anything new to say.

Comment 10 (1314) by OJB on 2008-03-21 at 16:24:01:

If the church not threatened then what is the problem? I still don't see why anyone would care so much about the program if it didn't have some potential negative effect.

You must be aware of the bleeding statues that some religious people claim exist and say are miracles. And then the church has to send someone over to see if its a real miracle. Surely you can see this is a satire of that. OK, its a bit gross but I can't think of a better way to make the point about how silly the whole miracle business is.

I honestly don't think that it would worry me if something I was involved with was satirised that way. For example, computer geeks are often satirised but I just laugh at it. I guess we just won't ever agree on this because its really just a matter of opinion in the end.

Comment 11 (1317) by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 22:00:27:

My point being that 'threatened' was the wrong word. 'Offended' might be better.

You just don't get it do you? The best you can do is say "OK, its a bit gross", and then you make some stupid comparison with a tease on computer geeks. Let me make a comparison more real to you....lets say the subject of the South Park episode was your mother, wife or daughter. The women closest to you in your life are unjustly and disgustingly ridiculed. Are you still cool with this? Would you let it slide by on the basis of just satire? Or perhaps you would be a teeny weeny bit offended? Hope that makes things clearer now.

Comment 12 (1328) by OJB on 2008-03-22 at 19:58:21:

Yes, I do see your point now. I guess I would be upset if a friend was ridiculed that way. Its a different world being religious which I often have problems relating to. The idea that anyone would feel that attached to a character from a 2000 year old myth is just so bizarre that I didn't even consider it.

Comment 13 (1340) by SBFL on 2008-03-30 at 21:50:25:

Obviously you don't feel the same way about Mary, but many Christians feel close to her, especially Catholics who place a special reverence on her. The point being one could at least extend tolerance to other people in their beliefs and cultures, even if there are not your own, understanding how they may feel by drawing a parallelism with a example that could affect yourself. That is why I haven't supported the Mohammad cartoons for instance. They don't offend me obviously but I respect they offend others and therefore think we should all just chill out a bit and try to build bridges, rather than destroy them. Confrontation doesn't usually achieve a hell of a lot, eh?

Comment 14 (1362) by OJB on 2008-03-31 at 18:31:03:

This is an issue I'm not so certain about now. I've blogged about it today. Warning: there's some scathing, sarcastic comments about the credibility of Christianity there!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.