Incompatibility of science and religion
Physics Today "Letters", May 2008, page 10

The ongoing dialog in the Letters section regarding science and religion has been most interesting (see, for example, PHYSICS TODAY, January 2008, page 10, and February 2007, page 10). However, I think the writers are missing the point. The two disciplines start with different and incompatible perspectives. What I would call true science is totally objective. Whatever a scientific investigation turns up, even if it overthrows previous work, must be accepted as long as the findings pass all tests. Religion starts with truths that cannot be falsified and must be accepted. Any scientific evidence to the contrary is therefore false.

In the multiplicity of religions and sects, there is room for people to believe in various aspects of science. For example, the Big Bang can be seen as an act of divine creation billions of years ago, with no later divine interference in the evolution of the universe. Or everything humans see can be taken as having been created in six days a few thousand years ago. Regardless, religious people accept divine intervention and reject any attempt to refute whatever degree of intervention they believe in. True science holds that religious beliefs must be subject to testing and that they so far have not been proven.

Religious people, whether lay or clergy, can and do make contributions to science. But in the larger sense, the religious cannot claim to be true scientists. As long as belief can trump scientific findings, religion and science can never be compatible. Therefore, I recommend that scientists and religious people work together wherever possible, but that scientists continue to vigorously promote their findings and to expose what we believe to be false or misleading information. On the other hand, scientists should recognize that religion, with its matters of life, death, and morality, is grounded in individual and collective belief and not subject to scientific argument.

I would also like to say a word about "theory." I think it is time we dropped the word; it carries too many interpretations. We should speak of "models" instead. Implicit in the word is the notion that models are snapshots of current knowledge, are subject to change, and must be constantly tested. Even evolution can be considered a model. In this way we may separate science from the immutabilities of religion.

Michael C. Schneck
(mikeschneck@comcast.net)
Ashburn, Virginia

this is based on his own unproven belief that science can disprove religion, don't you think? otherwise there is no reason for such a claim, as belief will never have the option to "trump scientific findings".

a religious scientist who comes across the situation where their religion is somehow disproven has three options:
1. cease to be religious and continue being a scientist
2. cease to be a scientist and continue with that religion
3. continue to be a scientist and find a religion which has no proof against it.

and there will always be a religion with no proof against it as long as there is Christianity

julz

It has to do with proof in a different way. Religious people have their 'faith' as their "proof". Obviously this is 'not good enough', as it can not count as scientific evidence. Hence it's never compatible. It has nothing to do with assuming to be right or be able to disprove religion.

I have to say though, even with scientific evidence, how do you disprove religion anyways? Often people simply adjust their belief a bit, something that's VERY easy as there's so much stuff that's multi-interpretable.



No pun intended, but all of those options are a bit funny in my opinion. If the person really would be a scientist he would be aware of how theories can be proven wrong and how there is no scientific proof in favor of religions.

All he really has to do when science disproves his belief is change his personal view to fit the new data. If this means that because the Christian God can't possibly exist, then he or she should accept that. It would be a pretty unnatural thing for a scientist to simply disregard evidence and keep on believing in there own things. I'm aware there might be a certain 'comfort zone of their own theories' that they rather wouldn't see changed drastically because of some proof, however if facts disprove things you have previously believed in, then you should adapt your view.

It's like when you find out Santa Claus isn't real... It might hurt, but you have to live with it.



Why? There are plenty of things in the Bible that we can or could prove to be wrong actually. Whether 'Christians' would accept any genuine rebuttals is something else. Again, this is why there's an incompatibility with science, religion doesn't usually accept scientific evidence.

if you can conclusively, you'd be the first. forget Catholicism for a second, and Christianity is basically the belief that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, and that believing in Him let's us get into Heaven instead of Hell. other things like historical accuracy of the Old Testament are neither vital nor able to be disproven by going back and checking out if it actually happened.

find me a possible way of proving that wrong. until then, like i said, there will always be a religion with no proof against it as long as there is Christianity.

no one thinks faith == proof. faith is belief without proof.

actually the point is that there is no scientific proof against them (or at least all of them). therefore: science and religion are not incompatible because a scientist can be religious without compromising his/her ability to reject a theory when it is soundly disproven.


that's what i said. if your religion is disproven and you agree with the proof, adapt your view. but the new view no longer conforms to your religion, so you cease to have that religion.

those three options cover everything: the first two are choosing science OR religion, the third is choosing science AND religion, but there is no room to choose both AND not change your religious view.

a scientist doesn't need proof for everything they're told. if he/she did, he/she would be plagued with terribly trust-less relationships and have a very hard time spawning new scientists believing in things without being given proof is called faith ("hell no... scientists can't have faith can they?").

science and religion are not incompatible.

i'm sure that's pretty straight-forward now.

julz

I do. But this way:
Faith is belief based on internal, personal proof.
Science is belief based on external, impersonal proof.

The fundamental problem is that internal proof cannot be made external and vice-versa.



Bingo! A true scientists is exactly as Julz describes... since we have no evidence FOR or AGAINST most religions, a scientist can choose which to follow. Thus a scientist can follow any religious belief that doesn't contradict their scientific belief. Jesus died on the cross for our sins? Fine, no problem. The Earth is 4000 years old? Problem.



Why can't it be a change in your scientific outlook? The Jesuits are perfect examples of this. But honestly, I'm having trouble understanding this third option anyways...


Hmmmm... I dont' think so. Everything that I know, I have seen derived, proven, or exposed sometime in my career. I think you mean though that when someone from the COBE experiment comes to me and says "Omega is close to one thus the universe is flat" it is true that I have not worked out the Omega... nor do I know how to go from Omega to Flat. But I trust (yes, have faith) that my fellow scientists have used the same base knowledge I was exposed to, use the same methods I have been exposed to, and thus I'm confident that if I DID understand, I would likely reach the same conclusion. Note that this is not always the case. It is very common for a scietist to say, for example, "Omega is less than one and thus the universe will expand forever"... but when others check his work, follow his proof, and is found to be wrong... that's it... point dropped. I personally don't have to do this; but my colleagues will and thus science progresses.

As well, consider that by design, scientists are skeptics. Thus just because Stephen Hawking says "black holes evaporate", it's not until several other people independently check the "proof" that it's believed. And when that proof changes, so do our believes.

So it's not accurate to say that scientists don't need proof... we don't need to SEE all the proof EVERY TIME but we do have to trust that our fellow scientists are doing exactly what we would do (follow the scientific method), that their proof is valid (measurable in standard units), and that anyone around the world can follow the same proof and get the same results (repeatable experiments).

And when that trust is broken, it's found out and the guilty parties punished! How can you not love a system like this?

well, that was what i was trying to put across. i didn't mean to come across as "scientists don't need proof at all". my point was just that the view of the letter you originally posted only holds if a scientist cannot have faith.



there are many religions that aren't well-known, so i wouldn't be so bold to assume there are none that can be disproven by science. if a scientist within a religion finds that it is undeniably disproven, that scientist can only remain a true scientist and be religious by finding a different religion that hasn't been disproven.

i did leave out the fourth option though: stop being a scientist AND stop being religious, but i can't imagine someone looking at this option simply as a direct result of the scenario i mentioned.

i looked up Jesuits and found too much information for me to read without being late to uni this morning, so i was wondering if you could elaborate on them? i may misunderstand your meaning by "change in your scientific outlook" but i thought that was implicit in any discovery.

cool, i'm glad we're in agreement there. and i'm not sure if your stab at young earth theory is also meant to be a point where Christianity can be disproven. many Christians do believe in a young earth, but many don't or don't care. i personally don't believe that the earth has to be millions of years old. i haven't looked into it, but i don't need to because it doesn't matter to me. i don't think there's enough proof in the Bible that means we Christians have to think the earth is 6000 years old ("in the beginning" at 4004 BC or something). if, as a Christian, i would have to believe in a 6000 year young earth, that's the only reason i would care about the age of the earth.

so, yeah, science and religion are still compatible, just as you said

julz

They are a JudeoChristian religious sect that has always had a strong leaning towards science. There are many advances in science and math that are attributed to Jesuit Priests.

As such, they are a prime example of religious people that work in the realm of science AND religion and can modify EACH to fit the other.

http://www.jesuitsinscience.org/



That's exactly the point. Since it is scientifically impossible for the Earth to be that young, any argument built upon a young earth, be it religious or scientific, is equally impossible.

On things that can't be proven scientifically, we accept all alternatives but favor none. Otherwise we would be saying that that I can't prove something is right but I do know it is wrong... which is contrary to the scientific method. Hence I can't prove god exist, but neither do I know he doesn't, and thus it remains a individual "possibility" (that any individual can choose to believe it valid or not and be equally correct) but not a scientific "possibility" (such that a singular belief emerges consistently as being more correct than others, in spite of what I personally believe)

On things that can be disproven or proven however, we accept only those things that fit with those fact and dismiss any alternatives. Of course, should one of those alternatives, at a later time, fit the facts better, we have no problem accepting it.

This is also where the Jesuits come in for they have maintained their religion (and quite at peace with it BTW) for hundreds of years in spite of, and often inciting, scientific revolutions.

This sentence lacks scientific proof and thus is itself an unscientific proposition.

For being incompatible, it does not suffice that two perspectives are different. They have to contradict each other. This is not necessarily the case with science and religion. Science can be and is compatible with religion; it only is not compatible to _any_ religion.

In the beginning of mankind, science and religion were indiscernible. The first religious world views attempted to explain the world - just what science does. The first astronomers were priests, astronomy was a religion. Science and religion had the same roots, they only developed in different, but not necessarily incompatible directions.

Religious ideas that were indeed incompatible with science only came up much later - such as the idea of a dogma. If a religion has the dogma that the earth was created in six days, it has certainly a big problem with science.

On the other hand, modern Protestantism for instance does not contain dogmas and thus is compatible with science. Some people consider Atheism a religion. If that is the case, then it's a religion that is also compatible with science.

The next line was however:


So his starting perspective for science is one that is mutable (and that has been proven in the past and present) and religion as one that has an immutable world view (which again has been proven in the past and present). Both these perspectives can be studied, researched, and tested and thus, it is a scientific propostion.



And that is the point of the article and our previous conversations: that as long as religion doesn't comment on something that is overtly dismissed by science, then religion can be compatible with science. Hence my statement that Jesus dieing on the cross for my sins is no problem (since science makes no commentary on sins or jesus's life) but saying that the earth is 4000 years old is a problem (since that is scientifically impossible).

I dare say we are all in agreement and merely stating it a different way?

Why? How many days does it take to create the Earth?

Thats because 'modern Protestantism' does not believe the Bible literally. Don't you think it is a weak and cowardly for a religion to throw out whats contained in its Holy Book in order to 'modernize' and fit with science or to fit with society?

I have more respect for any sincere atheist then I would for a Protestant who would conform simply because its the easiest, most appeasing way.

If there is a God, and if He did inspire the Bible then it might very well conflict and become incompatible with mainstream science. Of course. Specifically the segment of Christianity which actually believes that the Bible is the Word of God. And those that believe the Genesis report of Creation. But this incompatibility poses no problem.

correct.




Prepare to have your mind blow a gasket:



Like to make an attempt at interpreting that verse? Instead of coming up with individual ideas about what faith might or might not be...why not check out the manual where it is defined? I don't suppose this will fit with 'modern Protestantism' but I like to read the Bible simply for what it says.