![[cc-by-sa]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png){kind=small}
You will frequently hear certain anti-religion science bloggers and commenters on these boards saying that the only way for a non-atheist to be a good scientist is to "compartmentalize"— to wall off a part of his mind while doing science, and likewise to wall off the scientific part of his mind while thinking about his religion.
Do I agree with this? Yes and no.
In the yes column: obviously, we have to wall off, to some degree, our religion when doing science, but no more so than we must wall off many other parts of our humanity. If you let your preconceptions from your religion influence your interpretation of the data, then you fall into the "Intelligent Design Trap". Scientists who conclude that there is "evidence for design" in the Universe are not scientists who are really making good scientific conclusions from the data; they are torturing the scientific process in order to allow for it to produce the result that their philosophical preconceptions led them to.
But there are many other ways in which we must wall off parts of our experience as human beings in order to avoid "investigator bias." I strongly recommend that everybody read The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. This book is subtitled "The Modern Denial of Human Nature," and is an exposition and analysis of bad science that came out of the political left. In the early 20th century (and, unfortunately, still now), some racist and/or sexist scientists have used biased or incorrect data to claim that there is evidence that race or gender A is inferior to race or gender B. The reasonable response to this is that legally we should treat all as being equal, and not judge their capabilities from assumptions based on their race or gender. However, this led to the philosophical preconception that in reality, all people are created strictly equal. This is what Pinker calls the doctrine of the "blank slate." We are born with nothing, with infinitely plastic brains, and everything we develop is imposed upon us from outside: our parents, our siblings, our culture. As evidence mounted that, even though our brains are amazingly plastic and adaptable, we do have a lot hardcoded as humans, and, what's more, different people do have different natures, there were a lot of scientists who would shout down this evidence. Why? Because they had based so much of the argument for political equality on the notion that people are born cognitively identical that evidence to the contrary would be used to attack that political argument.
So, yes, very clearly you need to make sure that your ideology and philosophical preconceptions do not warp your interpretation of the scientific data. Religion can do it, as can political philosophy. (A second lesson I would take from this is that one must be careful when basing your ideology on a scientific conclusion. There are a lot of good reasons for egalitarianism, and we do not need the false argument that human nature doesn't exist to support it! Likewise, I think that theists are making a mistake when they point to our ignorance about the moment of the Big Bang as a place where we can fit God the Creator. What will happen when we develop a theory of quantum gravity and do address that event scientifically? We may end up going around the Galileo track yet again, just as we are doing with evolution today.)
One can think of other, more personal examples. I could (but won't) name several astronomers whom I find insufferable, arrogant, annoying, and irritating. However, that is not a reason for me to disregard their papers or devalue their scientific work. I have to put aside— "wall off" if you will— my personal feelings when viewing their work as scientists. Similarly, I can name some scientists whom I really like as people. And, yet, I shouldn't give their work more credence just because I like them better than others.
That's the yes. What about the "No"?
The antireligion types who suggest that non-atheist scientists must wall off part of their thinking when doing science, and likewise when practicing religion, are basing that statement on their belief that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible, that acceptance of one requires the dismissal or (at least) compromise of the other. I disagree with this statement. As I have said before, I view religion (as expressed in a way that is compatible with the modern world) as orthogonal to science.
Let me give a smaller example. I have been to scientific conferences where I had a choice of talks or sessions to go to. Sometimes, I had to choose between a session closely related to my own work on the one hand, and a session where a friend was presenting on the other. I chose to go see my friend present, because as a human being I like to support my friends, and I like to see what they are doing. Was this an ethically dubious scientific decision? No! Give me a break; I certainly didn't go to (nor would I have been able to go to) every scientific conference that had talks closely related to my work, sometimes for human reasons (I had classes to teach, a wedding to go to in which I was the groom, etc.).
This is an example of not completely walling off a non-scientific part of my humanity from me doing science.
If somebody is motivated because of their desire to understand God's creation to choose to study Cosmology over other fields, is that such a terrible thing? If they become Intelligent Designers, then they have made the mistake I outlined above: allowing their philosophical preconceptions to bias their interpretation of their results. But whatever it is that one finds important in life will influence things you value, including choices you may make in what you pursue in science. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, nor is this evidence of bad science.
As for the walling off in the other direction: you absolutely must not wall off your scientific good sense when contemplating your religion. I know that the antireligious crowd like to assert loudly and stridently that science is incompatible with religion, so any scientist must be deluding himself if he's not an atheist. That, however, is simply untrue. Science and religion are orthogonal. If you are a practicing scientist who walls off his science when contemplating religion, you could end up like this fellow, a geologist whose PhD thesis was critically dependent on the notion of a billions-of-year-old Earth, and yet who remains a young-Earth creationist. This is an example of compartmentalization leading to metastasized philosophical illness. Some will defend him saying that his scientific results are all valid if he's following the right procedures of science. I don't doubt that the antireligious types think I've been doing basically the same thing if I'm doing any valid science. But I assert to you strongly that I am not. I don't see the point in pursuing science if we don't think we're pursuing something that is right.
There are forms of religion that are incompatible with the human understanding that has come with the modern world. Young-earth creationism is the most glaring example. It simply does not make sense in the modern world for an informed person to believe that the world is only 6,000 years old. I know there are some who do, but it simply doesn't make sense. We have overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Walling off good scientific sense while contemplating religion leads to bad religion, which in turn has bad social consequences as people attempt to legislate education to teach science that doesn't conflict with that bad religion.
For religion to make sense in the modern world, it must always be changing, adapting, as we learn more not only about the natural world through science, but about what it means to be human through all of the other creative endeavors that humans engage in. Many— fundamentalists of both the religions and antireligious stripe— like to insist that religion must be based on ancient writings and dogmas, that for it to make any sense we must never alter or update our views about theological truths. I have had creationists in my comments assert that they can't see how a Christian could believe in a billions-of-years-old Earth... and I've had atheists comment (sometimes politely, more often belligerently) that I shouldn't be allowed to call myself "Christian" because I don't subscribe completely to a set of set of doctrines decided upon by a committee of white guys 1600 years ago. (Or, even more, to the interpretation of those words promoted by today's fundamentalist churches.) But this is not modern religion. Theology and religious studies are still going concerns... not just sociological studies about religion and the religious, but also study of the theology itself. Obviously it's not a static thing inscribed in stone in the past; obviously it can still learn and advance like any other human endeavor.
I have described the proces of science as just the process of careful, honest, and applied common sense. You have to be aware of any philosophical preconceptions that might influence the interpretations of your results, and you have to avoid letting these preconceptions bias you as much as possible. This is the way in which one must compartmentalize one's science from one's religion or other ideologies. However, one should not compartmentalize away science while contemplating religion. What's more, one can be a whole human being, accepting and thinking about the things we value in life (science, religion, love, friendship, fun, beauty, etc.) without having to compartmentalize them all away based on the narrow-minded view of some strident and extreme ideologues who believe that various of these conceptss are so fundamentally inconsistent as to require one to destroy the other.
Comments
fundamentalists of both the religions and antireligious stripe
This is where I stopped reading.
Posted by: kevin | July 18, 2007 1:41 PM
Rob - very interesting analysis of the issues, thank you. Regarding religion as orthogonal, do you hold the philosophy that religion is about "why" and science is about "how?" It seems like those who don't believe in god are lining up in two camps - this one and the one that treats religion as a dangerous thing that undermines science and should be abolished. I'm a former christian, current agnostic, who hasn't come to any conclusion for myself.
Posted by: Texas Reader | July 18, 2007 2:01 PM
I think one issue that should come up more often in these debates is that religion is not the only unsupported belief that people use to get through the day. Most of the things humans do and believe are based on rationalizations, not rational thought. Woo has a lot of flavors, and each of us subscribes to more than we would like to admit. The more the matter has to do with relationships with other humans or one's own subjective experience, the more it will show up. Audiophiles are an easy example: try convincing someone that their oxygen free (but hype laden) speaker cables don't make a difference in audio fidelity.
Religion is of course front and center, since it is the field that has the most immediate and apparent consequences for science. But if someone is going to use Dawkins' "Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, or Wicked" rule on religion, they had better be ready to use it to test ALL aspects of their own personal relationships, their own outlooks, and their own work.
Personally, I try to stay on the ignorant and stupid end of the spectrum (If you don't feel ignorant a lot of the time, you're probably not a scientist or an atheist). The others do have their perks though
Posted by: hibob | July 18, 2007 2:05 PM
sorry for my comment which is very redundant of your diary post: I meant to post it to a post I had just read, not one I was just about to. One of the dangers of having too many open sciblogs tabs!
Posted by: hibob | July 18, 2007 2:09 PM
I stopped at "yes and no."
it's one of those pungent equivocations that means that a whole lot of sound and furry is to follow without any real point being made.
If you're going to have a debate, you can't argue both sides and expect people to take you seriously.
Posted by: Keith | July 18, 2007 2:13 PM
To kevin: 'fundamentalists of both the religions and antireligious stripe'
This is where I stopped reading.
Then this is where you fell victim to the very issue the post discusses.
Posted by: Panya | July 18, 2007 2:14 PM
The problem is have is that a religion that claims to be founded on a universal truth (and most do), by definition, should not be subject to change, unless the underlying truth is changing as well. It seems to me that if everything we can test chips away more and more from a religion, you would have to eventually get the point where you would have to concede that the religion as a whole would be invalidated as implausible. It seems that once a religion becomes primarily metaphorical, it loses any rights to claim divinity.
If you can compartmentalize to the point that this doesn't bother you, then more power to you.
Posted by: Godless Geek | July 18, 2007 2:18 PM
"It seems to me that if everything we can test chips away more and more from a religion, you would have to eventually get the point where you would have to concede that the religion as a whole would be invalidated as implausible."
No no, you don't have to concede anything! Just redefine religion to be something that the majority of those that could be considered "religious" wouldn't even recognize, and you're set.
Posted by: Molkien | July 18, 2007 2:32 PM
Well, I read the whole thing, you make some very good points: religion is not the only thing that can cause bad science, and religion does not always cause bad science. But I think the residual compartmentalization that you discuss should be taken as evidence that science and religion are not compatible, just as science and ideological bias are not compatible.
You say:
-- but isn't this precisely what a Christian scientist does when they give special credence to the story of the life of Jesus? I know you don't believe in any of the miraculous stuff about Jesus - the stuff that's clearly not orthogonal to science - but then what is left? What makes your attitude toward Jesus religious, and my attitude toward, say, David Hume, just one of intellectual respect? And if you can name two or three things that make your attitude a religious one, then what is your evidence for those two or three things?When I say religion and science are incompatible I do not mean that any religious person will end up doing bad science; that is clearly not the case. I just mean that the religious scientist who believes in miracles must not propose miracles as explanations for their study, and the scientist who has religion must relax their normally strict standards of evidence for their properly religious claims.
Posted by: Pete | July 18, 2007 2:32 PM
C'mon people, "This is when I stopped reading" isn't a very convincing argument.
I think the compartmentalization is simply about letting your religious beliefs off the hook, simply because they are "religious beliefs".
All your defenses of your religious beliefs have been pretty vapid. You clearly have two standards- one for the real world, and one for "religion". You isolate your religious beliefs by declaring them "orthogonal" to science. I don't think you've proven this.
If there is a God, there should be some evidence of it! (Unless he's deliberately hiding.) All empirical evidence points towards a naturalistic universe. To continue to believe in God, when there is no empirical evidence, is unscientific. Thus, you are defiantly compartmentalizing by not examining your religious beliefs with the same diligence I assume you examine everything else.
Posted by: Abbie | July 18, 2007 2:35 PM
only unsupported belief
I wouldn't say that religion is unsupported... it's unsupported scientifically or unscientific. But there is a lot behind a lot of peoples' religious beliefs.
Just as if you feel love for somebody, that's not very scientific, but it isn't baseless.
I stopped at "yes and no."
it's one of those pungent equivocations that means that a whole lot of sound and furry is to follow without any real point being made.
In other words, if somebody doesn't take an absolutist, take-no-prisoners, have-no-nuance position, you won't listen? Kind of a pity, because the vast majority of things people think about have complications and shades of grey beyond a simplistic black-or-white answer.
I'm not arguing "both sides." Also a pity that you view everything as having to be so dichotic. I'm arguing that there is some value in considering compartmentalization, but that it's not completely correct.
The problem is have is that a religion that claims to be founded on a universal truth (and most do), by definition, should not be subject to change,
Science also claims to be founded in Universal truth. We do not believe that the nature of the Universe is changing as science advances... it's the nature of our understanding about it that is changing.
I would say that religion is somewhat similar, although not exactly the same because religion isn't science. Whereas nature is what nature is, a religion that can be "right" for one social context may not be for another.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 18, 2007 2:36 PM
Abbie -- every time I post on science and religion I get some people saying, "Show me the evidence for God!" The people who post that miss the point in a big way. Demanding empirical, naturalistic evidence for God is to demand that religion be a subfield of science. It is not.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 18, 2007 2:38 PM
The whole argument misses the point. The point is not that science and religion are incompatible. The point is that a scientific approach to knowledge and understanding is incompatible with religion. In order to believe in any religion, you must check your rationality at the door and believe things for which there is zero evidence. That is the antithesis of the scientific approach, the very approach which has resulted in every advance in our understanding of the world.
Posted by: Mark P | July 18, 2007 2:43 PM
I'll concede that to a point, but a fundamental difference is that science welcomes change. I'm not a scientist, but I find it thrilling when new evidence turns old assumptions upside down and forces us to look and things in whole new ways. I know that new findings are highly scrutinized, but if they are correct, they are gladly incorporated into the larger body of evidence. Religion, on the other hand, tends to fight change tooth and nail, and only finally accept it when there is no other choice, and rather than adding to the body of understanding of the deity, it tends to remove or obscure portions of said beliefs.
It's hard for me to compare the self-correcting nature of science and religion because one is so open to change and the other is so resistant.
Posted by: Godless Geek | July 18, 2007 2:50 PM
In order to believe in any religion, you must check your rationality at the door and believe things for which there is zero evidence.
In order to believe in any religion, you must believe things for which there is zero scientific evidence.
The rest of what you say is wrong. No need to check rationality, and no need to demand that every base or reason for the things you believe is strictly scientific.
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 18, 2007 2:52 PM
Religion has historically been very resistant to change, and a lot of religion today is very resistant to change. But has been and is changing.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 18, 2007 2:54 PM
And as Rob said in a previous post, the whole argument boils down to, "Is the scientific method the only means by which a person can gain knowledge?"
Activist athiests say yes
Religious fundamentalists fudge their answers depending on whom they're talking to
Everybody in the middle says no
I can guarantee all of you that unless you address this question, you're not going to convince anybody of anything.
Posted by: Brandon | July 18, 2007 2:54 PM
Apparently Dr. Knop subscribes to the non-overlapping magisteria position of Stephen J. Gould. This position is strongly refuted by Richard Dawkins in his book, "The God Delusion." The Dawkins position is that religion makes claims subject to scientific scrutiny which can be falsified (e.g. the resurrection of Joshua of Nazareth, raising of Lazarus, Joshua making the Sun stand still, etc.). He insists that falsification of such claims amounts to falsification of religion.
Posted by: SLC | July 18, 2007 3:08 PM
I certainly do not compartmentalize when I do science. I rely on the nature being both orderly and, though at times with great effort, comprehensible. Without these, science would be a fool's errand. However, we have no real reason to expect that nature is both orderly and comprehensible, and so I view our very ability to conduct science as prima facie evidence for God. Furthermore, my religion tells me to do all things for the glory of God--which at the workplace I interpret to mean "as if God were my boss." And so it is impossible to compartmentalize. Compartmentalizing occurs to combat tension. There is no tension here.
That said, I "do" science just like my unbelieving colleagues. If you believe that impossible or even difficult, you are one of those fundamentalists of an anti-religious stripe who has already stopped reading.
Posted by: David Heddle | July 18, 2007 3:11 PM
"Is the scientific method the only means by which a person can gain knowledge?
Activist atheists say yes"
Are you kidding me? "Activist" atheists (that's ei, not ie btw) enjoy art, and movies, and books, and are capable of love, and have a sense of right and wrong, all of which doesn't come from the scientific method.
Posted by: Molkien | July 18, 2007 3:15 PM
Read previous comment threads on posts I've made on this topic. You *will* find people explicitly claiming that if knowledge isn't derived via the scientific method, it's not really knowledge.
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 18, 2007 3:24 PM
Keith -
If your not going to read the whole post, then you really shouldn't make inane comments like that. The problem with your logic is that this is not a black and white issue. Robs point is that there are times when it is appropriate and indeed, necessary to compartmentalize, while other times it is neither necessary, nor appropriate. He is not arguing more than one side, he's arguing that different situations call for different approaches.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 18, 2007 3:27 PM
How many of you scientists used the scientific method for choosing your spouse?
Posted by: Ed Minchau | July 18, 2007 3:40 PM
"No need to check rationality, and no need to demand that every base or reason for the things you believe is strictly scientific."
Of course that's true, at least as long as you're willing to compartmentalize.
Posted by: Mark P | July 18, 2007 3:41 PM
Demanding empirical, naturalistic evidence for God is to demand that religion be a subfield of science. It is not.
Does religion make claims about the real world?
If it does, these claims should be able to be tested. If they affect the universe, we should be able to detect the effect.
If it doesn't make claims about the real world, then indeed it is not a subset of science... it's a subset of fiction.
Just as if you feel love for somebody, that's not very scientific, but it isn't baseless.
We know love is a product of evolution; we know it exists and why it exists. It's still complex and mysterious, and we don't empirically judge it where we are under its spell... but it's still a very real biological function. We can study it.
Posted by: Abbie | July 18, 2007 3:42 PM
Of course that's true, at least as long as you're willing to compartmentalize.
No -- you don't need to compartmentalize, you just have to understand that the scientific method isn't appropriate for everything that a human thinks or feels during the course of a day.
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 18, 2007 3:45 PM
Re David Heddle
The difficulty with Mr. Heddles' approach is that, as an old earth creationist, he is quite willing to accept irrational claims of various religions (e.g. based on previous discussions with him, he has no problem believing that Joshua was able to convince god to cause the sun to stand still, with none of the scientific consequences of such an action occurring).
Posted by: SLC | July 18, 2007 3:51 PM
Surely one's ethical beliefs/opinions/standards are one non-science area of life that a scientist carries into doing science?
A commitment to honesty, for example, when a particular experiment doesn't produce the results expected? For example, suppose someone has carried out an experiment or investigations of another sort that strongly suggest a specific significant conclusion. Then as it comes time for a grant to be renewed, something goes wrong - perhaps the scientist is thinking even that some error in carrying out the study must have occurred - and the results obscure the important conclusion. Does the scientist fake or obscure the results to continue the grant, believing as he/she does that these results are some sort of aberration, or does complete honesty of reporting prevail even at the risk of losing the grant?
Suppose all data so far indicate that something very valuable could be determined by studying a small and specific example of people - say, tyrants willing to murder whole groups of people to stay in power. Does the scientist look only at data collection methods without regard for informed consent?
In each case, I would hope that ethics would not have been compartmentalized out of the doing of science.
Posted by: JuliaL | July 18, 2007 3:58 PM
No -- you don't need to compartmentalize, you just have to understand that the scientific method isn't appropriate for everything that a human thinks or feels during the course of a day.
*
No need to check rationality, and no need to demand that every base or reason for the things you believe is strictly scientific.
I don't think *most* atheists would disagree with this.
But I thought religion was something... important? Most religions make pretty serious claims that are far above the day-to-day rationalizing we humans inevitably engage in. Sure, we believe irrational stuff all the time... but do we codify these beliefs into a religion and demand they are respected? I'm sure that, upon prompted self-analysis, we can be enlightened as to how we are being irrational. Religion rejects any such analysis.
So we're not super-rational in our daily lives. Does this excuse religion's approval of irrationality?
Posted by: Abbie | July 18, 2007 4:00 PM
I think some people are hung up on the phrase "the scientific method" here.
No, not all knowledge comes from the scientific method. But we have to have some standards for evidence. There is a lot of evidence that leads us to believe that a man, Gaius Julius Caesar, was assassinated in Rome about 2000 years ago. This evidence hasn't come from "the scientific method", but it is very convincing, consisting of large amounts of mutually supporting historical documents, artifacts, etc.
This kind of evidence is almost entirely lacking in the case of any of the mundane stories told about Jesus, to say nothing of the miraculous ones which would require even more evidence.
Rob says:
Some religion has changed, and some religion has not. The kind that has changed to become compatible with the scientific understanding of the world is so different from the kind that has not, that perhaps it needs another name. It seems to me that what you have is a religion-inspired secular outlook; you see Jesus as a good role model, and you have a respect for and attachment to the stories of the Bible. I haven't seen any of your writings indicate otherwise. And of course you don't need to compartmentalize anything for this. This kind of attitude towards religion is not at all what I criticize as an atheist, except to the extent that it can enable the crazier side of religion.
Posted by: Pete | July 18, 2007 5:22 PM
Just one caveat: it may not be safe to assume that Stephen Pinker's own science was so good that his preconceptions and biases didn't come into play when characterizing the positions of his opponents. The science wars of the 70s and 80s were much more complex than he portrayed them in The Blank Slate.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 18, 2007 8:27 PM
I blogged here:
Posted by: Mark Whybird | July 18, 2007 8:46 PM
The post is interesting and a much more honest effort to understand the issues than earlier attempts. (Though the point where religious critics can't critique religions as they are commonly practiced, "...fundamentalists of both the religions and antireligious stripe— like to insist that religion must be based on ancient writings and dogmas...", is a persistent failure here.)
But as Mark P noted, the argument still misses the point. The rejoinder, that rationality still applies, is continuing this trend. If we insist that there are different rationales, we must distinguish between the bounded rationality of each area and a coherent rationality.
John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts has a series of posts on this. A de facto compartmentalization in the form of cognitive dissonance follows from adhering to different bounded rationalities (cognitive sets), even in the case of attempts of adjustments to the dogmatic rationalities. Increases of the resulting cognitive dissonance beyond an individuals tolerance level lead to extinguishing of a cognitive set.
This risk is minimized by confining oneself to fact-based rationale whenever it is possible, as in the question of anti-factual sentiments, old superstition, and other similar aspects that makes religions a problematic cognitive burden.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 18, 2007 9:15 PM
Perhaps I should say "concerted". I didn't mean to imply dishonesty, honesty is a loaded trope, but a somewhat dispirited lack of depth.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 18, 2007 9:19 PM
Pete:
This, for some reason, reminds me of John Shelby Spong. He calls himself a "non-theist", and distinguishes this from "atheist". This distinction has a lot of people confused, but it makes sense if you know enough deists.
This is a claim that I hear a lot but still don't fully understand.
Yes, there is craziness in liberal Christianity. As one example: A few years back in my state (Victoria, Australia), the state-owned water board was being privatised. One movement within the Uniting Church (which is the third biggest church in Australia, incidentally) thought they'd try to make a theological case for keeping water retailing nationalised.
Yeah, it's crazy (and enough people in the church told them so). But it's not exactly the same as blowing up abortion clinics, is it?
Posted by: Pseudonym | July 18, 2007 11:24 PM
Okay, I'm always mildly baffled when people argue that using corroborating documents about events is being 'unscientific'. I have never used a massive particle accelerator (and probably never will), yet I am more than quite willing to believe the results published in journals.
Am I being unscientific about my belief with regards to various physical constants?
Posted by: archgoon | July 19, 2007 12:11 AM
Abbie wrote:
"If there is a God, there should be some evidence of it! (Unless he's deliberately hiding.) All empirical evidence points towards a naturalistic universe. To continue to believe in God, when there is no empirical evidence, is unscientific. Thus, you are defiantly compartmentalizing by not examining your religious beliefs with the same diligence I assume you examine everything else."
Okay Abbie: what would you accept as "evidence" ?
What is your operational definition of "evidence" in this context?
Posted by: Steve | July 19, 2007 12:40 AM
Um, the point of observational evidence is that it is up to the 'theory' to provide the definition. This is btw a good example of the cognitive dissonance that religion creates with respect to rationales on observable reality, i.e. all the rest of life (whether objective or subjective rationale).
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 19, 2007 1:42 AM
Okay Abbie: what would you accept as "evidence" ?
What is your operational definition of "evidence" in this context?
Well, pretty much anything. I'm not picky.
Anything more than a priori arguments, god-of-the-gap non-theories, subjective experiences and coincidences.
Posted by: Abbie | July 19, 2007 1:47 AM
Torbjörn:
Just to be clear: When you said "cognitive dissonance" here, you were referring to Steve's question, and not to Rob's point that not everything that's interesting (including religion) is scientific, right?
Posted by: Pseudonym | July 19, 2007 2:15 AM
subjective experiences
Anything I can give you as evidence for why I believe in God will be filed under this, probably.
And, that's because religion isn't science... there is no scientific evidence for God.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 19, 2007 7:55 AM
It is incorrect to say that one can "know" things by other means than the scientific method, or a method very like it. One can believe things for which there is no evidence, but one cannot know such things (and I don't want an argument about whether one can "know" anything.) This long discussion is an attempt to redefine what religious scientists must do as something other than compartmentalization, but whatever the words you use, it comes down to exactly the same thing.
Posted by: Mark P | July 19, 2007 8:17 AM
Torbj�rn Larsson:
"This is btw a good example of the cognitive dissonance that religion creates with respect to rationales on observable reality, i.e. all the rest of life (whether objective or subjective rationale)."
You are dodging the question with an ad-hominem response.
Answer the question I asked, not what you want to twist it into. Your response is intended to be a conversation ender: call such inquiry "cognitive dissonance" ... what could possibly bring about an end to the discourse more quickly, than implying that I lack sufficient cognitive discrimination to formulate the right question?
Boom. Discussion ended. Well, no. Answer the question I asked.
Posted by: Steve | July 19, 2007 9:50 AM
Rob; do you believe that there can be overlap between science and other ways of knowing? And if so, how do you reconcile conflicts?
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 10:26 AM
Abbie:
"Well, pretty much anything. I'm not picky.
Anything more than a priori arguments, god-of-the-gap non-theories, subjective experiences and coincidences."
An example: suppose I build a signal amplifier. If I make the claim that the device is operating within spec, simply because I measure output when input is applied, is not evidence the device is operating within spec.
Such evidence is too vague: no context, no meaning. No operational definition of "evidence" ...
In LIKE FASHION, a response like, "Anything more than a priori arguments, god-of-the-gap non-theories, subjective experiences and coincidences..." is too vague.
Posted by: Steve | July 19, 2007 10:28 AM
And, that's because religion isn't science... there is no scientific evidence for God.
Dude, this is the issue at hand. You keep claiming NOMA, we keep saying no, if religion has any meaning it must somehow affect the actual factual universe we live in. Lots of things aren't science but they still are, in some way, perceivable.
Posted by: Abbie | July 19, 2007 10:29 AM
You keep claiming NOMA, we keep saying no
And this is exactly why there's no point in continuing further. Give up already.
if religion has any meaning it must somehow affect the actual factual universe we live in
And it does. But this does not necessarily mean Intelligent Design, or God pushing around planets. In my view, the effect of spirituality is upon conscious and thinking beings who can contemplate, react to, and receive something like a "personal revelation" through that spirituality. And, yes, a lot of the reactions are highly negative. But not all of them. (I will make a longer post on this at some point.)
You will turn around and say "they're motivating themselves through their fairy stories, it's not *real*", whereas I will argue that in fact there is a reality to that. The problem here is that you will not accept thing as "real," any knowledge as "knowledge," unless it is scientific knowledge, unless it can be tested empirically through the scientific method.
You are demanding that I reduce God to a set of scientific experiments, and we both know that there are no scientific experiments out there that point to God. In other words, you're trying to reframe the debate so that at the end you can say, "Ha HA! Look, no evidence, therefore you can't believe in God!"
I am refusing to reframe the debate on your terms, because they are not relevant terms for religion.
Look, if you don't understand religion, if you don't see the point in it, then don't bother with it. But demanding that those of us who do see value in it then define religion in scientific terms is missing the point. It would be like me asking you to describe the Riemann Zeta function using only the words "truth," "beauty," and "love." It doesn't make sense, and the very asking of the question, the very demand you make indicates that you are unable or unwilling to discuss religion on the terms where it makes sense.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 19, 2007 10:44 AM
Don't scientists have to compartmentalize their beliefs even if they aren't religious? Don't you have to hold multiple, possibly contradictory theories in your mind whenever you are thinking about something interesting? I don't see why there is any particular worry about whether religious scientists can compartmentalize their beliefs. Their product should speak for itself.
One of the points I see coming out here is that many people are religious because of personal, spiritual experiences. This is why I'm religious, and those experiences are my evidence. Is this just a crutch? Maybe, but some people get around much better with crutches. Is this, like Love, something that can be studied scientifically? Sure, why not? I'd love to understand it better. That won't make the experience any less real to me, just like studying love won't stop people from loving.
I am curious about the scientific method, though. What exactly is it? Is anyone willing to define it and claim that all of our "scientific knowledge" comes from this one method?
Posted by: Rolfe | July 19, 2007 11:17 AM
"The Scientific Method" isn't really a method per se. In junior high or high school science classes you may have learned a series of steps that are supposed to be the method. However, my view is that the scientific method is just "applied common sense."
I have a slide that gives my view of what the scientific method really is here:
http://brahms.phy.vanderbilt.edu/~rknop/blog/?p=66
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 19, 2007 12:02 PM
To lay all my cards on the table: I am an evangelical, Old-Earther, and have a background in philosophy.
I find it insanely laughable when atheists level these charges against religious folk, esp. when they aren't consistent with their own atheism.
A consistent atheist would not believe in their own rationality. Nor would there be any meaning or point what anyone does with science or anything else. We are just atoms bouncing around with no meaning to anything.
I could go further with this. But I'll let this be for now. Atheists are borrowing things from theism.
Furthermore... yeah, atheists don't have any biases that make them do bad science. Junk DNA sound familiar?
Posted by: Geoff | July 19, 2007 12:29 PM
Got an argument to back that up?
Oh, good grief. Lucky you posted this here and not at, say, Pharyngula. Here, educate yourself.
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 12:32 PM
I think Gould was right regarding NOMA. There is one question science can not answer. Why. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do the laws of physics exist? Many try to spin the question of why to be irrevelant, but to many others, it is the ultimate question.
Posted by: Jim Beers | July 19, 2007 12:39 PM
Suppose tomorrow a study comes out proving to any level of confidence you require that:
a) prayer offered to one specific deity cures any illnesses, diseases or injuries - cancer, lost limbs, whatever. This works for the person praying or for anyone they pray for.
b) prayer offered to any other deity results in the person praying instantly bursting into flames.
This tells us nothing whatsoever about religion?
Religion can't answer it either. It's not even clear it's a meaningful question.
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 12:49 PM
It's not even clear it's a meaningful question.
Ugh, not that one again.
One of the questions people use religion to help address is "what is my purpose in life?" Lots of people use lots of different ways to address that question; for some, religion is part of what they use.
In the past, though, comment threads get taken over by assertions that that is not a meaningful question. I think Richard Dawkins is on record saying something similar. Which, of course, is ludicrous, because for many people it does have meaning.
It's not a scientifically meaningful question, but that doesn't mean it's not a meaningful question.
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 19, 2007 12:52 PM
Which wasn't the question presented. I woulnd't say that one's meaningless. It may well have no objective meaning, but that's not the same thing at all. On the other hand, 'why something rather than nothing?' does seem to be asking for an objective answer, which makes it rather different.
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 12:59 PM
MartinM,
Why, of course it is a meaningful question. Why the hell wouldn't it be? In fact, it is even a meaningful scientific question. And of course religion answers it trivially. It may be the wrong answer (as might any of the more esoteric cosmologies that seek to provide an answer, or a partial answer) but nevertheless, it answers it.
Posted by: David Heddle | July 19, 2007 1:17 PM
MartinM:
Religion can't answer it either. It's not even clear
it's a meaningful question.
Not a meaningful question! Why is it not a meaningful question? So you tell me that you do not find "why there is something instead of nothing" meaningful. To many it just might be the most important question. Whether religion or anything else can answer it is a different question, but I bet most people ponder "why."
Posted by: Jim Beers | July 19, 2007 1:42 PM
I'm familiar with the attempts to rewrite history about Junk DNA and Darwinist assumptions.
An argument to backup the claim that a consistent atheist can't assume their own rationality:
Atheists assume that every thought in your own head is what is because the atoms are bouncing around your head a certain way. They also assume you weren't designed for any purpose. Therefore, you don't believe anything, according to an atheist belief system, because it is true. You believe what you believe because of physics, chemistry, etc. Since you don't believe in anything because of the truth or falsity of that belief and you weren't designed for any purpose, you cannot trust your own rationality if you are consistent with atheistic beliefs.
This can be seen via evolutionary psychology. They are always giving stories about why people believe such and such. A recent one came out and said how people are pre-programmed to detect and see design. Others try to do it with religious belief.
But to see the slippery slope they are on try giving an evolutionary psychology account about evolutionary psychology.
Posted by: Geoff | July 19, 2007 2:04 PM
So, I disagree with Geoff. The whole notion that atheists can't believe anything is a straw man.
What I'm trying to argue here is that it's completely reasonable for one to be a non-atheist and also fully accept science, even without "compartmentalization." I have nothing against atheists or the atheist philosophy, except for the philosophy that religion is fundamentally incompatible with science.
Use of the word "Darwinist" is always a danger sign -- the only people who use it are people who want to attack evolution -- and "reducto ad absurdum" argument that Geoff makes that no atheist can consistently believe anything is just bunkum.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 19, 2007 2:08 PM
It is wrong to support irrationality.
Religion is fundamentally irrational.
Even Rob here has admitted that there is scientific evidence. Does he believe that there is other evidence? Beyond, "God must be responsible because we don't know what really is?"
If I thought that prayer did any good, (it doesn't), I would pray for the complete destruction of religion. Can you imagine how much science could accomplish if instead of building incredibly large posh churches, the money went to scientific grants? Cancer research?
Religion offers comfort for those who can't accept parts of reality. The more reality you can, and do accept, the less religious you are.
Posted by: Me Myself and I | July 19, 2007 2:09 PM
I do not think that Geoff is arguing that atheists can't believe anything. Obviously, they can. The question is can an atheist trust his own reasoning?
Another related question is why an atheist thinks his morality is something anyone other person should care about.
Atheists obviously think that their reasoning is (on the whole) trustworthy, and that their morality is something other than mere feelings (in that they seek to impose it on those pesky Christian fundamentalists whom they think are anti-gay, which in today's society seems to mean little more than 100% endorsement for homosexual/other acts).
Posted by: David | July 19, 2007 2:15 PM
I guess I have trouble trying to figure out why you don't apply the same basic standards of evidence to this as you do to anything else. In your line work, just having a feeling about something means nothing. Same goes for everyday life. I've had times that I "felt" that someone was behind me. I strongly perceived a person standing behind me, but when I turned around, there was no one there. The feeling was completely dispelled and I went on about my day. I didn't trust my feeling over my observation. I didn't think that there was an invisible person standing there watching me. I simply assumed that my feeling was wrong. You certainly wouldn't assume there was an invisible person standing there if I told you about it. Instead, you'd dismiss me as paranoid. The same goes for gods. In the absence of evidence, gods are just like the invisible man. There is just no reason to believe they're there.
Posted by: Godless Geek | July 19, 2007 2:26 PM
Godless Geek
I would agree that in science, (and in life in general), having a "feeling" about something isn't worth much.
Can you show how morality is more than feelings in your world view? Sure, they are feelings that are caused by a fair amount of "programming" whether by evolution or some other factor. So what?
Posted by: David | July 19, 2007 2:29 PM
In your line work, just having a feeling about something means nothing.
For most of us (although we can't admit it if we are in academia), there is more to life than our job.
There are lots of things in my life to which I do not apply a scientific standard of evidence. And there are lots of things in your life to which you do not apply a scientific standard of evidence... but good luck getting you to admit to that.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 19, 2007 2:33 PM
You do think that a great deal of religion is incompatible with science, and you have taken great pains to eliminate all sources of conflict with science from what you call your "religion". So what, other than the decorations in the church you go to, make what happens there a religious experience? In contrast to, say, someone going to the theater and having some kind of insight?
I'm not just saying that you disagree with a particular laundry list of miracles and therefore you aren't religious. I'm saying you are making no claims that a theater-goer, a baseball fan, a jogger, etc., would not make about why they like their activities. It's true that baseball is orthogonal to science - so what?
About the "enabling" argument: it's just that there is no principled way for a theist who accepts, say, 10% of the miracles in the bible, to argue against someone who accepts 100% of them. If Jane believes in the resurrection but not the virgin birth, how can she convince Michael, who does believe in the virgin birth, that he is incorrect?
(I don't expect Rob to keep answering all these questions; I'm impressed he's kept up with this so long. I'm going to keep reading this blog and maybe learn some astronomy too. If that continues after the Second Life thing, that is..)
Posted by: Pete | July 19, 2007 2:34 PM
Rob,
There are things in my life where I don't apply a scientific standard of evidence.
I consider that a failing of mine. I'm basically admitting that there are times when I don't think well.
It seems you do not consider it a failing.
Posted by: Me Myself and I | July 19, 2007 2:40 PM
How?
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 2:45 PM
With a bit of luck, that will become fairly self-evident once David gives us a possible answer. Feel free to provide one yourself, if you've got any in mind.
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 2:47 PM
Then don't peddle it.
You're assuming that physical processes aren't capable of determining the truth or falsity of a proposition. You'll need to support that assumption.
While you're at it, perhaps you could give a reason for trusting your own rationality as a theist. Presumably you have one?
Posted by: MartinM | July 19, 2007 2:50 PM
My basis of morality is humanistic. If it's not harming someone else, it's your choice. There are certainly feelings involved in that and I'm not completely discounting the importance of feelings in it, but my personal feelings about what others do don't mean much when they're aren't affecting me.
I certainly don't use a scientific standard of evidence in everything I do. Not in most things. Humans are instinctual, hedonistic creatures of habit by nature, and you sometimes have to consciously suppress those urges. I follow my feelings, but I don't let them rule me. In a my average day-to-day life, I don't really have to think about most things I'm doing, but it's vital to separate the new or important things. If my feelings or instincts are leading me to a conclusion that goes completely against the observable facts of the situation, my rational minds steps in, and to me, the question of religion and core beliefs is of the biggest, most important things there is.
Posted by: Godless Geek | July 19, 2007 2:55 PM
MartinM
I tell you what. I'll answer your question when you've answered mine. Otherwise we can just both go away thinking that the other has not thought their worldview through.
One more thing:
I am assuming that purely physical processes aren't capable of determining the truth or falsity of a proposition. One reason why I assume this? There isn't a shred of evidence to that effect.
Posted by: David | July 19, 2007 2:59 PM
Me Myself and I:
It is not a failing. Life is not all about science, all the time. Now, if you are a Nobel Prize quality scientist, then for the benefit of humanity it may be worth it if you find such a notion preposterous. Otherwise, if you actually do believe life is all about science, then you really need to get a life. Not to mention that I'd suspect you are a phony--not having met any actual Spock-like people in real life. Everyone I know wonderfully abandons the scientific method when they are not, in fact, doing science.
No, life is rich with things that I know even though I don't know why I know them. I saw in my son's Mad Magazine this statement about John Travolta: We used to like him. Then we found him annoying. Then we liked him again. And now we find him annoying again.
I know that to be true without recourse to the scientific method. If you think the scientific method must be applied before we can know things, then you are seriously impoverished.
What is really going on here is a begging of the question: we can know things only if we known them by the scientific method (or something like it) therefore only by the scientific method (or something like it) can we know things.
Posted by: David Heddle | July 19, 2007 3:00 PM
You say that as long as its not harming someone else, it "ok" to you. So certainly you would think that behaviors that do harm someone else should not be done. But those are just your feelings. Nothing more than that.
So why should I care that you think that way?
Beyond the fact that you feel its wrong, why shouldn't I find out where you live, and basically take everything you have?
Posted by: David | July 19, 2007 3:02 PM
Me Myself and I:
What assumptions are you reasoning from to reach this conclusion? You must have arrived at this rationally, right? How do you justify those assumptions?
Rational ethics depends on values, and different people have different values. Personally, I don't think rationality is inherently good or bad. I think it can be very effective and used to produce tremendous good or evil. And rational argument based on bad axioms can convince people of wicked lies.
Even if rationality and the "scientific method" is the one path to truth, it isn't clear that we must value truth over freedom or beauty or love. You can value truth more, but why should I?
Posted by: Rolfe | July 19, 2007 3:06 PM
I am not a phony, as you think. If I could be a Spock-like person, I would. Unfortunately I am not.
Life is about searching for truth. So is science.
When you stop searching for the truth because you feel something, or because you are satisfied with not having a foundation for your "knowledge", you've stopped acting rationally, and you are one step close to acting religiously.
To bring up your MAD magazine example, you only stopped using the scientific method if you accepted what they said on blind faith. Then you were acting religiously.
Posted by: Me Myself and I | July 19, 2007 3:07 PM
What assumptions did I reason from? The definition of what it means to be rational and irrational. One is living in accordance with reality, one is not.
Truth is objective. "Freedom", "beauty" and "love" are all feelings. Would you like to argue that feelings are somehow "better" than reality? Of course not. Every scrap of evidence we do have shows that yielding to our "feelings" produces wars, intolerance, judgementalism, racism.... most if not all evils in society just as it might produce some "good" things.
On the other hand, if you act in accordance with reality, there isn't a scrap of evidence that exists that shows that something "bad" can come out of that.
Posted by: Me Myself and I | July 19, 2007 3:12 PM
To me, our mutual desire to not have our stuff taken should be sufficient to allow us to establish a common set of moral guidelines, but if that's not rational enough, then how's this?
As humans, we have achieved the level of success we have because we have banded together as a society. Many have achieved what one could not. For that society to function, a basic moral system, agreed upon by the masses, emphasizing the rights that all have must be established, otherwise the system will break down, society will fail, and people will go their separate ways to protect their own interests. Quite literally, our species is as advanced as it is today due to the establishment of a common moral system enabling people to work together, rather than driving them apart.
Posted by: Godless Geek | July 19, 2007 3:42 PM
Magic man done it.
Posted by: cbutterb | July 19, 2007 3:54 PM