Quote of The Week

Sorry, that was me. Didn't intend for it to be anonymous.

NOMA! Allow me to be the first to remind you--again!--that the veracity of that statement depends entirely on which religious faith(s) we are talking about.

Sven,
Agree with you. I think a good amendment might be "fully compatible with the vast majority of religious faiths."

"...can be fully compatible with religious faith..."

Well considering how many types of religions there are and how many different ways people define "faith", this statement is pretty obvious and useless. But pretty much all religions involve or even require belief without (or despite contrary) evidence, and that kind of belief is not compatible with science. In fact, it is the opposite of science.

"Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world."

Right, it's just that one of those ways is incorrect; and that can have dire consequences, so it matters which people believe and accept.

"Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future..."

Science does not need religion to contribute to a better future. Relgion, because it only exists as long as humans exist, needs science not only to contribute, but to itself survive. If a religion requires faith, defined as belief without (or despite contrary) evidence, then it is opposed to science. Horrible things will happen regardless, but this kind of faith will, and does, lead to even more horrible things.

Or to be really honest "fully compatible with what the vast majority of faiths have in common"

(while completely contradicting the particular origin-myths, and truth-claims of every single one....but I suppose in the spirit of building bridges between science and religion and/or woo and/or Dungeons & Dragons we can just leave that last part out)

Not even that Matthew, "the vast majority of religious faiths" assert their own type of special creation. What you mean is evolution is "fully compatible with some of the most populous religious faiths in the USA".
While 44% of the US population are Catholic or mainstream Protestant you must remember that about 34% of the US population are members of Evangelical or traditional Black churches that do tend to take a more literal view of the bible - which, needless to say, is not compatible with fully accepting evolution.

Hence can be compatible, not is. But yes, it depends on the faith. A good letter on the subject:

U. Kutschera, "Dogma, not faith, is the barrier to scientific enquiry." Nature 443(7107):26, 2006.

I think a good amendment might be "fully compatible with the vast majority of religious faiths."

I'm not sure that even that is accurate. Evolution certainly conflicts with what I understand to be the beliefs of most adherents of Islam and Hinduism, and arguably even most moderate Christian sects argue for some sort of theistic or "guided" evolution. The statement is, as Sven point out, the standard declaration of NOMA, but I just don't see the evidence that backs up that claim.

Even if we restrict the discussion to the US, I'm not sure that the "vast majority of religious faiths" accept evolution without reservation or modification. Certainly a large number of the Christian faiths don't: Roman Catholicism doesn't, nor does Mormonism, nor do all evangelical faiths that I know of, nor most varieties of the Southern Baptists (not to mention smaller groups such as Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses). Most of the more conservative Jewish sects argue at best for theistic evolution, and some outright reject it. And as I noted above, while I am not terribly conversant with the beliefs of Islam and Hinduism on this regard, my impression is that neither of these religions are generally warmly disposed to evolution.

So I would argue that, on the face of it, even the more specific modified claim of "fully compatible with the vast majority of religious faiths" is extremely suspect. It certainly can't be asserted without some sort of concrete evidence.

Of course you can make your religious faith compatible with evolution, or any other body of well-corroborated scientific theory, if you are prepared to abandon any falsifiable claims that your religion makes about the world.

The important thing about evolution and Christianity is not so much that evolution is incompatible with some fundamentalist versions of Christianity (even though it is); it's that evolution has forced sophisticated Christians to abandon large portions of what was once an encyclopedic explanatory system. That is a disaster for Christianity, and the fundies are quite right to sense it. The fundies may be wrong when they reject evolution, but at least their religion gives them the basics of an entire worldview, complete with a sacred history, a whole lot of concrete explanation of why the world is as it is, and so on. Once a religion doesn't do that, there's every chance that it will end up degenerating into mere spirituality with little empirical or metaphysical content.

Come to think of it, that's a probably a good thing. So all right ... contentless spirituality and evolution are indeed compatible, for whatever that's worth.

The bottom line is that a bland statement such as "religion and evolution are compatible" conceals a lot of complexity and a real tension. Then again, no official body is going to admit this. That's why we need strong individual voices, such as that of Dawkins (not to mention a whole lot of philosophers, starting with Dennett), to make the point.

I still ask, How does religion help us understand the world?

As has been argued over and over, this relies on a definition of religious faith that is at an extreme. To make religion fully compatible with science, you have to believe that your sacred texts are all metaphor. I do know a lot of Christians like that, but I also know ones who believe in the literal resurrection of Christ, and/or the power of prayer (they would still count as moderates, though, having accepted most of the obvious bit of science).

An awful lot of religious faith involves such superstition, which is in no way compatible with science. Science and religion may be different ways of understanding the world, but they are frequently trying to understand the same bits of the world; and they do so in a contradictory manner.

It's no good pretending there's no conflict here, there is. Most people feel it, and if they do any philosophising, they'll see there are good arguments for the reality of the conflict.

The quote you have is a half-truth, that very few people are going to be persuaded by in any real sense. NOMA can work -- but it's going to have to be pushed by metaphoricalists, not scientists (yes, there is overlap of course).

Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world.

There may be more than one way to skin a cat... but isn't a conflict between them more than likely if we are trying to skin the same cat?

Buncombe! Creationism makes nothing clear, but simply defines clarity down, (way down), as it drops the threshold for explanation. Alleged conflicts between science and religion, SJ Gould notwithstanding, arise from the insecurity of faith and not from the scientific method. Consider that science can (has the potential to) explain religion, whereas religion cannot (lacks any method to) explain science.

"As SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM makes clear, the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith."

How exactly does "creationism" make clear this compatibility? Are there, for example, any self-proclaimed creationist websites that accept Darwinian evolution as a fact? Or has "creationism" been redefined to include all religious people.

I think the statement quoted above has no real informative content. But that probably is irrelevant in the framing world.

Matti,
Notice the link to the press release which quotes from and links to the full report, freely available online.

It seems to me that, based on the standards set in these comments, that science would also in conflict with philosophy, art, history, many theories of economics and even science as it was practiced through much of history prior to Newton. (We'll sidestep all the philosophical questions about the method itself as they're not relevant here.) I say it's time we go to war with all those postmodernists, capitalists, deconstructionists and the like! Anti-science the lot of them!

Sarcasm intended.

It seems to me that, based on the standards set in these comments, that science would also in conflict with philosophy, art, history, many theories of economics and even science as it was practiced through much of history prior to Newton.

If it seems that way, then you are missing the point.

Melinda - science is in conflict with an awful lot of philosophy, postmodernism being one of the most problematic. There are conflicts at every level between various philosophies of science, other philosophies, and within science itself. It's just that some conflicts are more politicised than others.

Why the sarcasm, Melinda? If some of those things do contain actual content that is inconsistent with well-corroborated scientific theory we should indeed say so. That's the sort of thing that scientifically-informed philosophers (like me, Daniel Dennett, John Wilkins, blah, blah) do.

I'd like to see the argument in each case, however. E.g., exactly what do these capitalists believe that is inconsistent with, say, evolutionary theory? It has to be something essential to their capitalism, not something that some of them just happen to believe, as they may happen believe that the St. Kilda football team will win its next match against Geelong.

If you can find something, it seems to me that you have discovered a powerful argument against capitalism. That would be quite a philosophical coup, if you actually do it.

Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world.

I'm an atheist. What part of the world am I incapable of understanding because I'm not religious?

All available evidence suggests that there's no such thing as supernatural beings. This may be one of the most important things about the real world that people need to understand. Are religious people capable of understanding that if it turns out the be true?

"Agree with you. I think a good amendment might be "fully compatible with the vast majority of religious faiths."

Huh? How is science compatible with say, the core articles of faith of Abrahamic religion? Let's recap: if you believe in miracles (water to wine, the resurrection, that a supernatural being created life on earth, moving inconveniently positioned mountains, parting seas, etc), then your beliefs are in conflict with science, naturalism, rationalism, etc. Belief in the resurrection and transportation of Christ's body into heaven is the CRITICAL article of faith for considering yourself a Christian.

I will grant that these are "different ways of understanding the world." THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM INCOMPATIBLE. Talk about a bunch of tepid, tiptoeing gibberish.

"It's just that some conflicts are more politicised than others."

John, My point, exactly. The furor over religion's conflict with science is based just as much (if not more so) in ideological concerns than in any need to protect science from conflicting views. Outside of academia and far-right conservative political circles, I haven't seen much of a furor over postmodernism being taught in our nation's universities. Maybe I just haven't seen the section of the bookstore where they store all the best-selling screeds against philosophy and its destructive influences?

"I'd like to see the argument in each case, however. E.g., exactly what do these capitalists believe that is inconsistent with, say, evolutionary theory?"

I didn't say it was inconsistent with evolutionary theory, only that it conflicts with science. Capitalism assumes that people are rational actors re the marketplace. This has been disproven.

"That's the sort of thing that scientifically-informed philosophers (like me, Daniel Dennett, John Wilkins, blah, blah) do."

Yes, I know. But I'm talking about the political/ideological furor not staid academic discussion and debate. Though I think there's a lot to be argued about how "staid" academic debates actually are.

"I'm an atheist. What part of the world am I incapable of understanding because I'm not religious?"

Larry, I'd say none if you want my two cents. I think it's talking about perspectives. For instance, you probably have a moral philosophy that offers you a different if not conflicting perspective on the world than science does. Science tells you what is. Your moral philosophy informs what you think should be. You probably also have political and economic philosophies that do the same. Am I making any sense?

Finally, to no one in particular, I personally think that conflict (even with science) is productive. That may have something to do with my time as a gay rights activist. I'm all too aware of the tremendous political pressure it took to get scientists to reconsider the mainstream scientific consensus that homosexuality was a severe mental disturbance, despite the fact that there was no reliable evidence for homosexuality being a mental illness. Conflict is, I believe, necessary for progress.

miko: "Let's recap: if you believe in miracles ..., then your beliefs are in conflict with science, naturalism, rationalism, etc."

How so? I sense some fuzzy reasoning here, starting with the very vagueness of the phrase "conflict with science."

No, no, religion is fundamentally opposed to science. And if they're not, then you're simply not religious enough! According to the producers of Expelled, that is...
Larry Moran:

What part of the world am I incapable of understanding because I'm not religious?

Perhaps "understanding" isn't the right word here. You can understand everything, but can you do everything? (Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with everything in that essay, but it's fascinating.)

Melinda, capitalism assumes no such thing, as far as I can see. It's not apparent to me that capitalism assumes much at all. It just does whatever seems to work. It's very pragmatic.

However, I guess this is quibbling. Economics does frequently make the simplifying assumption that you mention. Sometimes economists treat it as more than a simplifying assumption, whuch can be dangerous because the assumption, though near enough for some purposes, is indeed false. But philosophers (quite properly) call economists on this, just as they (quite properly) call religionists on the problems with religion. Actually, I see a lot more public attacks (from philosopher and many others) on the simplifying assumptions of economists than I see attacks on religion, which is so often treated as not a legitimate target. i mean, there's a huge body of literature criticising mainstream economics from a Left perspective of one kind or another. Surely this is a good thing overall; economists should be kept on their toes.

So I still don't know why you said you were being sarcastic. Your original comment made perfectly good sense if not read sarcastically but as a warning that there are many ideas and practices around that could do with critique from a scientific viewpoint.

I do agree with you that conflict is necessary for progress. We should be constantly putting pressure on views that can't be sustained by evidence, even if it creates a bit of conflict.

The sarcasm probably wasn't necessary, but I get in these moods. The part that was sarcastic was the "let's go to war" and "anti-science" parts. I was trying to point out that the response to religion as a whole (as opposed to particular forms of it) in recent popular debate has been a bit out of proportion considering that these other fields pose the same problems and get a far more reasoned response even from those who are supposedly on a tear against worldviews that conflict with science.

I'm all for reasoned debate and I'm a big reader of philosophical tomes BUT what I'm referencing re religion is the ideological furor posing as reasoned debate. I've read Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins et al and I've found that they're more than willing to play fast and loose with fact, logic and science to make their ideological points. (I did a point by point refutation of Harris on my blog some time back.) That's why I called them screeds.

As for capitalism, for its theories to be coherent, it MUST assume that humans are rational actors re the marketplace. I'm aware that other theories of economics do the same and that scientists and philosophers criticize them for that reason. Where do you think I learned a lot of this stuff? But again, I think their public criticisms are often carried out in a rational, fact-based manner rather than in an ideological, apocalyptic furor.