Soul Made Flesh

Science and religion don't even address the same issues in a culture.

I'd say that historically this is a tenuous statement. Both have, throughout history, made claims about the material world. As PZ notes below, it was scientists working from within a Christian paradigm (archaeologists, geologists, etc.) that eventually had to overthrow the assumptions they were carrying from their religious perspective in order to follow the date.

Even over the past couple decades, look at the reaction to HIV/AIDS or to the HPV vaccine (or cancer in earlier decades). Both make claims about the nature of disease. While both may recognize these diseases as caused by viruses, there are very different worldviews underlying their approaches.

I think you're accepting the "separate magesteria" claim without recognizing that these two realms overlap...which also means choices between them are required.

The problem comes when religion makes testable claims about the nature of the universe. Whenever science disproves a claim made by religion, there is backlash from the believers.

Really, the conflict over testable claims is the whole problem with the "Science and religion don't even address the same issues in a culture"/NOMA idea. Science is perfectly happy to rule on the natural world, while religion keeps on sticking its fingers into nature and getting burned.

oops...follow the data, not date. (stalking is bad)

Too much beer (pirate day and all)..gotta go to bed soon so I can prep for a meeting with my diss advisor tomorrow.

Hey man this is out of place.. but there is a creationist that is performing some crappy science on youtube you must see. Right now I'm listening to him tell about how much gas the sun consumes and the amount of dust on the moon and the age of the earth and... wtf?

http://www.youtube.com/user/VenonFangX

Harderkid13,
I disagree that "science and religion don't even address the same issues in a culture".
The issues of "why" that many theologians bring up are well within the scope of inquiry. While the scientific method has not, as yet, given satisfactory answers to some of these "why" questions is by no means a dismissal of the progres it has made in regard to other "why" questions.
Granted, cultural obligations may make inquiry more awkward, but the questions themselves are open to whatever method one cares to employ (N.B., the scientific method is the only one that has ever improved humanity's condition, and remains the only method by which current problems may be investigated and probed further).
Philisophical meanderings are simply the last attempt of the truely useless to maintain tenure.
"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

slugdub,

venomfanx is a douche who has been posting his lunacy on youtube for quite some time. he doesn't allow video comments or responses because well - people keep tearing him a new one.

Science and religion don't even address the same issues in a culture.

I think part of the problem is that historically religion has had to address the issues that science addresses now. Look at any religion and pantheon of Gods and you see creation myths (the Finnish one is that the earth was formed when an egg fell off some lass's knee) and other events described which are intended to explain the world we see.

Now we have science which does a better job of explanation, religion has to retreat from this role. It's more difficult for some religionists than others.

Bob

Bob

Religion is science-resistant because faith is inherently dogmatic. That is to say, a faith-based belief is not a belief that is held because there are good reasons to think it is true. If you only hold a belief because it's likely to be true, you'll have no reason not to change your opinion once new evidence comes in and indicates that an alternative belief is the correct one. It's when emotion and wishful thinking and childhood indoctrination come into it that people will refuse to let go of a manifestly false belief. That's what dogmatism is.

The reason that religious moderates often seem less dogmatic than religious fundamentalists is not because they have less emotional attachment to their beliefs, or because they're less affected by wishful thinking. It's only because their beliefs have been carefully picked so that they're less likely to be challenged by evidence, so they have fewer occasions to demonstrate the full extent of their dogmatism. Moderates aren't really less dogmatic than fundies, they're just sneakier, or more timid, or more obscurantist.

I disagree that science and religion don't address the same issues. Science and religion both make claims about reality. Religion must make claims about reality in order to be religion, by definition. It's true that religion "addresses" some issues that science does not (such as morality), but even these issues are always _based on_ beliefs about objective reality. For example, a Christian doesn't simply believe that forgiveness is a good thing, he believes that forgiveness is a good thing because Jesus said it is, and what Jesus said can be trusted because he is the Son of God.

All claims about reality are subject to scientific inquiry. The dividing lines of material/immaterial and natural/supernatural are arbitrary and plainly designed for the sole purpose of putting religious beliefs beyond the reach of criticism. A statement about what is, what was, or what will be, can be evaluated by the scientific method, even if the result is dismissal. That a statement might be unfalsifiable doesn't change this.

Well put, people.

I've never understood the theists' claim that religion answers anything satisfactorily.

Seriously, ask any priest, rabbi, mullah, monk, bhiksu, or meth-addled crackpot the meaning of life, and, unless you're congenitally incurious, you'll be left with any number of further questions that must be answered before the first makes any sense. Push far enough, and they'll invariable leave their holy texts or 'divine' inspiration behind and start making things up (watch for the telltale "I think the universe..." or "to me, God is...." To their (dis)credit, moderates usually jump right to the apologetic I-thinks. Well, thanks for the fucking insight, St. Augustine. Now that we've covered my immortal soul, why don't you take another bong hit and we'll get to diagnosing this lump on my elbow? No, no need to get someone with a medical background, I'll be happy with the the first thing your mind shits out).

For people that claim to be concerned with morality, meaning, life after death, and questions of those kind, it's mind-boggling that so many theists seem satisfied with answers that demonstrate no more sophistication than an exhausted parent's patronising "Because I said so."

If it's true that science and religion cover non-overlapping magisteria, then the magisterium religion seems to address consists of questions that everyone pays lip service to, but most spend less time on than they do their picks for the office Superbowl pool.

Cue fifty armchair theologians with fifty courtier's replies (each involving unsupported claims that mutually exclude each other's claims) in 5...4...3...2....

Science and religion don't even address the same issues in a culture.

Besides the direct comparison of which issues that overlaps, at least in practiced religion, I would add that world views that are based on empiricism typically address more of these cultural issues.

With regards to Boyle specifically, my impression is that it is hard to analyze and understand isolated historical situations. The context, meaning of terms and the difficulties are different and impossible to grasp fully.

It is clear that Boyle and his contemporaries grappled with the difficulties of isolating empirical methods from previous philosophical and religious ideas and dogmas. But to separate out the influence of religion seems hard. Alchemy and astrology stems from religious roots, but how much remained at the time these ideas were abandoned, and how much did they contribute or detract from progress?

It is much easier to assess the current situation. Obviously socio-religious movements such as hardcore creationism tries to counteract scientific progress under the pretext of addressing scientific issues. We can also see that softcore creationism (theistic evolution) or < href="http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/09/whats-wrong-with-this-figure.html">old dogmas (chain of being) consistently confuse and pervert science or its cultural context.

That a statement might be unfalsifiable doesn't change this.

Moreover, we don't demand falsifiability of every statement that connects with theory. Of course we would like to see that, but in practice we accept theories on a subset of falsifiable predictions.

We can also see models (derived within a theoretical frame) based on likelihoods instead of statistical testing, which are provisionally considered even if there are no current complementary tests or tests with enough power. (AFAIK such areas as the concordance cosmology, methods in cladistics, et cetera.)

The missing link:

old dogmas (chain of being) consistently confuse and pervert science.

Historically (and I mean very much so), religion has been seen as an exploration of God, and by extension, an exploration of the natural world. The Catholic Church still has an official position in support of science - a position it has maintained for a few centuries, now.

Only in recent times has God been separate from the natural world in religious thought. So, yes and no. You have the right ideas, but an incorrect historical context - nice thinking, though. Whereas at one time religion was near-synonymous with science (scientists once took degrees in Theology) but dealt with different issues, now that is not the case. But now that science and religion are separate, they both try to answer the *same* issue - that is, what constitutes reality - which was never the case before since there was never any question that reality was separate from God.

The Renaissance was the period where an increasing distance between God and the natural world began to become common in the educated elite, and it was during Boyle's time that it was hitting its stride in the English Isles. You see the Puritans show up around this time as well, who took this idea towards its logical conclusion.

I prefer the second edition entitled "Sole Made Fresh" which grills the fish over charcoal to be served with melted butter and lemon.

"Oh, God, this is great!" I've heard that personally and not just from eating the fish. Do we care that the proteins are being denatured? Can't we just all be friends?

I'd also recommend the book, Liberal Lashings of Chablis, which I know is on PZ's bookshelf.

BUT unfortunately, there is nothing new in any of this.

I mean, does the Earth orbit the Sun? [Galilei]
Are the stars other suns, and might they have planets? [Bruno]
Does life change and evolve, and species go extinct over vast time periods? [We all know who]
etc.....

So far, every single time, the official religious viewpoint has been shown to be wrong, and yet people still listen to this non-factual superstitious rubbish.
Will someone please explain why?
Or is it that the "believers" have been brainwashed as children ( pace Dawkins' "child abuse" comments) and have not broken out of the believeing mindset imposed on them at that time?
It is certainly possible, as I can personally testify, having had a very narrow escape from such a fate myself, many years ago now.

Religions, beliefs that tell people not to trust reason, and that mindless faith is good. . . . Cheezits!

When talking about the scientific vs religious worldview, let's not forget that, whether we like it or not, the dominant species on this planet is not Homo Sapiens but Homo Ignoramus.

You can see a beautiful example of Homo Ignoramus in action on this small talk at "The View" :
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/the_world_is_flat

You get it ? Is the world flat ? The internetS, Babies made in sperms... It just won't stop, and don't forget, this is probably a representative sample of the American population, not the average blogger on Pharyngula.

All the above comments above assume that religion is (at least partly) about explaining the world.

That's the same mistake as thinking that creationists are interested in an explanation of the origins of the universe and life.

Religion isn't about explanations, it's about social power and social groups. It maintained that power centuries ago partly by claiming for itself the power of reason and explanation, which science has taken from it. And in all other regions of thought its right to dictate is challenged: science challenges religion on understanding the natural world, humanism challenges religion on the morality for a natural world, atheism challenges religion on the (non-)existence of gods, religions challenge each other on the nature of their non-existent gods, governments challenge religion on economic power, so religion is challenged from many directions.

Many people want power over others and a few achieve that through economic, political, scientific, sporting, military or other achievement (which is not to say that all people who achieve things want power!). Religious leaders achieve power through their attractive fairy tales, unattractive threats and duplicitous promises, a nice route for untalented people with greedy ideas.

yet people still listen to this non-factual superstitious rubbish.
Will someone please explain why?

I've been working on that for some time. Here's my latest.

Here's a sample:

I once let my brother's young kids watch a horror movie marathon one Halloween night. Early on during the films they were cracking jokes about how improbable werewolves, demons and zombies were but by the time the films were over they were so terrified of the simplest things I could make them jump just by shouting "Boo!" I eventually found them hiding under the bed with trembling flashlights in their hands. It didn't matter how skeptical they were, the movies had loaded their imaginations with all sorts of frightening possibilities and those imagined possibilities trumped their skepticism. Loading your imagination is exactly what religious proselytizers are doing. Have you ever had one accuse you of lacking imagination? I have and I'm a professional artist working in fantasy and science fiction who relies on my imagination.
We estimate probabilities and then plug in our fears and hopes. The real weights and numbers loaded into our Bayesian nodes and variables represent our fears and hopes and the estimated probabilities of encountering what we fear and/or hope for.
Religious propositions and claims we encounter in our mostly Christian culture generally have a low probability of being true. But religions like Christianity and Islam make up for their low probability by plugging into the most extreme hopes and fears that you can imagine. Those hopes and fears alter the way you estimate probabilities and how you collect data. Your imagination can be overloaded.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, I have a current post on my blog that discusses whether science and religion overlap, or don't, as part of a general critique of religion.

I invite comments there...SH

It is impossible for anything that passes for religion today to not overlap. It is ALL overlap on totally different planes. One reason and reality; one BS and magic.

No "Why?" can be posed without a "How?" No "How?" can exist without a scientific curiosity so to speak.

Religion at best tries to limit itself to "Why?" but cannot avoid the overlap because no rational person can avoid a "How?" And we all can see - religion NEVER avoids more than "Why?" -- it always streaches to its god(s) having some control over the natural world.

It is ALL overlap.

I have an easy answer, or at least a ready-made one:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/russellblackford/gould.htm

:)

A lot of eloquence.. but the elegant "argument" to me boils down to: Nothing religion says can avoid running into a HOW along its logical path.. HOW's ARE the domain of SCIENCE!!

It is ALL overlapped -- it is ALL so evidently overlapped - but the planes are different .. one seeks answers in magic and avoids reality or attributes magic to reality .. the other basis itself solely on reality and even questions the reality seeking "better" reality.

It is ALL overlapped - the confict exists because it is .. the fight is to get people to a higher plane (reason reality) - a plane serves humandkind much better.

autumn wrote: "While the scientific method has not, as yet, given satisfactory answers to some of these 'why' questions is by no means a dismissal of the progress it has made in regard to other 'why' questions."

Indeed, science has given far more inspiring answers to some of the "why" questions than religion, which is supposed to specialize in these.

E.g., why are we here, now, looking, thinking and acting the way we do?

The scientific explanation begins all the way back at the Big Bang, through gigantic exploding stars, to fragments out of the hearts of these exploding stars in every cell of your body. This explanation has depth - it all hangs together in a logically consistent manner (confirmed by mountains of data) back through untold billions of years, to microseconds from the very beginning of the universe. Scientists around the world are working on learning what happened during those few microseconds.

The most popular religious explanation in the world today is that some entity blew on a bit of dust and fashioned it in His image. But what is the depth to that explanation? "In His image"? The entity is supposedly not subject to human visual comprehension. Does "in His image" mean spiritually rather than physically? The entity is supposed to be spiritually perfect, and we are evidently not. I cannot see deeper logically consistent and experimentally verifiable explanations behind the initial assertion.

Treating religious teaching as metaphorical and consistent with science really does no better with the "why." It merely ascribes the explanations confirmed by science to the preferences of an entity whose mind, religion teaches, is unknowable. This - "goddidit" - is the classic inquiry stopper, the equivalent of saying "Shut up" to the child's repeated question "Why?"

So, to harderkid13 - will you continue to go through the world with the natural human curiosity that began with those repeated "Why?" questions and has brought you to the material in "Soul Made Flesh"? Or would you assume the attitude of those who grew tired of your questions and told you to shut up and stop bothering them?

I often wonder how Christian scientists (not necessarily Christian Scientists) juggle the two mind-sets. One, as has been pointed out, is dogmatic: "this is The Word, inviolate" and the other says, "Question everything." If someone takes the Bible literally, creation is laid out, as it happened, no questions asked, complete with waters above and below the firmament, followed by Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, a metric boatload of bloodshed, rape and sacrifice; a godlet who's the son of God, but at the same time merely a different aspect of "the one True God", yadda-yadda. I really can't see how a biologist (or anyone with half a brain) can say on a Sunday, "Yup, bats are birds. Pigeon's blood can cure illness. Men have one less rib than women. I believe!" and can then do a 360 degree turn-around come Monday morning. Really thorough comparmentalization? Lying to themselves? Or do they try not to think about it too much?

I often wonder how Christian scientists (not necessarily Christian Scientists) juggle the two mind-sets. One, as has been pointed out, is dogmatic: "this is The Word, inviolate" and the other says, "Question everything." If someone takes the Bible literally, creation is laid out, as it happened, no questions asked, complete with waters above and below the firmament, followed by Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, a metric boatload of bloodshed, rape and sacrifice; a godlet who's the son of God, but at the same time merely a different aspect of "the one True God", yadda-yadda. I really can't see how a biologist (or anyone with half a brain) can say on a Sunday, "Yup, bats are birds. Pigeon's blood can cure illness. Men have one less rib than women. I believe!" and can then do a 360 degree turn-around come Monday morning. Really thorough comparmentalization? Lying to themselves? Or do they try not to think about it too much?

Sorry about the double-post. I got an "Internal server error" the first time, loaded up the page on a different window and didn't see my post, so I resent. Arrrggghhh! (And not in a "Talk Like a Pirate Day" sort of way.

Sorry to waiver from the interesting threads above... just thought some of you might want to read the latest ID crap being flung re: shutting down a Pro-ID site associated with Baylor in Kansas.

http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/09/expelled-goes-to-baylor.h…

Keep in mind: most 'scientists' are just technicians.

The Catholic Church still has an official position in support of science - a position it has maintained for a few centuries, now.

As long as the science doesn't conflict with doctrine. Remember, there are plenty of bishops running around saying not only that condoms don't help prevent the spread of HIV, but that they're porous enough for the virus to pass through. That's not in keeping with the science.

Janus said: All claims about reality are subject to scientific inquiry.

Whose brand of reality are you referring to? Your take on a universe free from any non-natural influence?

While reading this book, I am continually struck by how religion resists change in science. Why? Science and religion don't even address the same issues in a culture.

Multiple reasons. Here's a couple:

One, science challenges religion on facts and shows that it's explanations of the universe are frequently false. This casts doubt on the underpinnings of the religion the basic line of reasoning being "If they were wrong about X... Then what about Y?"

Two, religion is a power structure that encourages conformance, dogma and hierarchy. Dissent and discussion, for many reasons, are not acceptable as they foster doubt that can lead to a loss of control. Science, by it's nature, is full of "heretics" and "heresies."

There are many other reasons for incompatibility. I'm sure, once I read the thread, I'll see them too.

Robert Boyle seemed to think they should be separated as well. Perhaps that is why he managed to make some significant advances in science and the scientific method. Any thoughts?

He understood.

I wasn't aware that reality came in 'brands' these days. Where can I see the catalog?

Ok, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and actually say something contrary to what most of the other commenters seem to be saying... The OP claims that:

Science and religion don't even address the same issues in a culture.

And I actually think that is correct.

What has been discussed in this thread is whether religion makes any claims about the nature of the universe that conflict with science, which is obviously the case. I for one think that NOMA is a load of bollocks. But looking at the quoted sentence above it was about addressing issues. Regardless of whether this is what harderkid13 really meant, I'm going to discuss it.

See, I think science doesn't or shouldn't address any issues at all. Science is a set of methods with which we investigate the world. A worldview or life stance is what we use to address issues. Religion is a kind of worldview that most of us here don't share. If we have a non-religious worldview, we are very likely to use science to inform our opinions and decisions when it comes to societal issues. But saying that science itself addresses the issues... well then we end up in that strawman argument of creationists, saying that if evolution were true, we should stop all kinds of healthcare in favour of a survival-of-the-fittest world. Which is obviously as stupid as saying that if the theory of gravitation were true, we should ban flying, because it defies gravity!

So yeah. Religion addresses issues that science doesn't, but that's like saying physics coursebooks address issues that cookbooks don't. They're different things - religion's a worldview, science is science. Rather, in this context religion should be compared to non-religious worldview.

peak_bagger

Whose brand of reality are you referring to? Your take on a universe free from any non-natural influence?

Define non-natural.

I would say that reality is anything that interacts with our persons, anything we can observe in any way, shape or form. Sometimes that interaction may come as the result of a chain (such as something outside the visible light spectrum being observed through a specially built detector), but if you can draw a chain to observe it, it is natural and can be tested and explored using scientific methods.

Thing is, if it can't, it has no effect on us at all.

The idea of the supernatural gives you some serious problems when you get down to it.

To the main question, I'm going to have to write up a quick summary and discussion of a talk I attended a little while ago on a similar point. If it goes well, I will have to post it here.

Not a lot to add to what's been said already... Religion presents truth as revealed and eternal. Some religions have stronger rationalist tendencies (or weaker psychotically-IRrational tendendcies), but all have some core of belief that must be accepted on authority and faith.

Science, of course, encourages you to question everything, right down to your bedrock assumptions, if that's where your observations lead you.

If people become fluent in the methods of science, they apply those methods to the questions that religion purports to address, abandoning not only the conclusions of religion, but its methods as well, and therefore its authority. (Most religionists would much rather have a discussion about conclusions than methods; that is, which proof-text, whether a particular passage is the most relevant, etc., than about why they're taking 2000 year old texts of dubious authorship as authoritative in the first place.)

And religions, having secular and temporal power and concerns, react poorly to having their irrelevance exposed.

See, I think science doesn't or shouldn't address any issues at all.

Nonsense. When science, the method, is turned to look at something like HIV and works to test whether or not anti-retrovirals work in treating it or whether condoms work on reducing its spread or whether or not the latest vaccine works, it's dealing with issues in society. When science develops a vaccine for HPV, it's dealing with issues in society. In communicating the results, to other scientists and to people in other fields, it's dealing with issues.

Science as a human activity cannot be removed from society. Even the questions asked, in certain fields more than others, will necessarily be tied to issues within a culture.

MAJeff, certainly. But science itself is not enough. Science can be used for good and bad. We are the ones who have to make a decision, using reason, empathy, whatever other skills we have. The scientific method alone cannot "address" an issue, it can merely provide a means to do so.

Science can only be excluded from our choices if those choices are arbitrary and meaningless. If they have any objective meaning, science can address that.

The conclusion that you want to reach is simply wrong.

Hi--I'm the author of the book that kicked this whole discussion off. I hope that as harderkid13 gets further into the book he or she will see that in the seventeenth century there was no simple divide between science and religion. The word scientist did not in fact exist--the closest thing to the term was "natural philosopher." And the explicit mission of natural philosophy was to find evidence of God's work in nature. Robert Boyle did not believe that natural philosophy should be dictated from a pulpit, but he did believe that his work served to further the goals of the church. We may think of him as the father of chemistry, but he was also a person who searched for the philosopher's stone to allow him to communicate with angels.

The main figure in Soul Made Flesh, Thomas Willis, is often considered the father of neurology, but he dedicated all three of his classic books on the brain to the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he asked to defend him against accusations of atheism.

We must be careful to understand historical figures in the context of their own times.

Precisely. Western Christianity stopped supporting scientific inquiry when it was realized that, contrary to St. Augustine's claims, reason didn't support the faith's claims.

The natural philosophers were looking for evidence of God in nature. They didn't find it. And religion, as is necessary for a worldview that operates by asserting dogmas regardless, rejected them and it.

It doesn't need to be the case that

religion resists change in science.

Maimonides (12th century Jewish philosopher) taught that if there is a conflict between what we know through science and rationality and a literal reading of the text, then the text must be read as metaphor. This approach has been adopted by nearly all of mainstream Judaism.

Caledonian, Are you wilfully misunderstanding me? I have never said that science should be excluded from anything. I'm saying that science alone can't address issues because science in itself has no inherent values. Science may tell us what a certain action's consequences may be, but it can't tell us whether it's good or bad - only we can do that.

What I'm saying is that people with a naturalistic worldview tend to let science influence their decisions in life to a higher degree than religious people do, because we think that science gives us the more accurate description of things as they actually are. But science in itself can't tell us what decisions we should make. Science can't tell you whether treating HIV is a good or a bad thing, it can only tell you how it could be done. Likewise science can't tell you whether abortions are right or wrong, or atom bombs.

Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

Felicia Gilljam: Likewise science can't tell you whether abortions are right or wrong, or atom bombs.

And I ask you ... and how does RELIGION propose to tell us the right and wrong of these things????? If you say it provides a reasoned framework based on weighting of pros and cons that can help us decide -- I'll tell you that's what science does! If you say the values for the weighting come from some higher source I'll say you are implying a WHY (for example: "why can 'he' make the rules?" "because 'he' is the creator that is why!")that will lead to a HOW question at some level (how do you know? how did 'he' do it (create the rules, create the universe, etc)?

Listen ... it is simple .. rational and reasoned thought and decisions require a proper scientific method of some sort. Good and bad evalutions worth their salt are based on facts.. values can weight pros and cons BUT if under rational and reasoned groundrules the values themselves derive too from a "scientific" evaluation of facts and observations. On the contrary frameworks based on magic are useless.. if religion boils down to a framework based on magic (which religions mostly do) .. then religion is mostly useless to answer ANY serious question requiring a serious answer.

OK, I have to absolutely put my two cents in here.

"Religion" is a broad category. Early religions and the religions of "arboreal cultures" tend to relate to how things came to be. The unexplainable in the past and present lead to supernatural supposition. Different tribes in different regions held these beliefs as "true" but not in the same concrete way science views truth, so there is/was no difficulty accepting that a different tribal group had a different idea of how something came about.

Of course the Greek and Roman cultures had plenty of gods, stories, and they borrowed freely from other cultures. Their religious beliefs were fairly plastic (except for not approving of those who were telling them that they could only worship one god one way and engaging in cannibalism)

The Jeudeo-Christian religions are supposed to be true, absolute and permanent, although what that means exactly differs from faith to faith. It CAN'T be plastic and still have an Unchanging, Perfect God.

And now many of the formally less rigid tribal religions worldwide have also become less plastic as a way to retain "cultural identity"

So when you start getting answers to the questions religion used to ask: How did that mountain get here. What's that stuff that comes out of brother's body when he falls? What is beyond the sky? How do the stars not fall? Then your religion has less and less fodder, and your god or gods get smaller and smaller.

For people who can't see reconcile what's "real" according to their faith and what's "real" in terms of actual, measurable, tangible being, that's threatening to their faith life.

The one thing science hasn't and can't answer successfully is "what happens to me after I die?" and "how am I uniquely me". The reason is that most people cannot accept that there is no fundamental MEANING to life, that we go on and make our own meanings. They are unable to or unwilling to accept that they are mortal, the product of their brains, bodies and behaviors, and that there is nothing more.

So when you are reducing god, you are also reducing the individual in a way that makes him uncomfortable... because then people have to start to think about THIS life, and create their own meaning for their life.

Here's an Scott Fitzgerald quote that go along with this:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."

Science advances because of first-rate intelligences.

peak_bagger asked:

"Whose brand of reality are you referring to? Your take on a universe free from any non-natural influence?"

I wasn't talking about anyone's "take" on the universe. I was talking about the Universe as it is, regardless of what intelligent apes might believe about it. You know, reality.

Even miracles (supernatural phenomena) must be subject to scientific inquiry. Because something that exists is something that has an effect on something else, the fact of a miracle's existence must be demonstrable by science, even if no human intellect is able to actually comprehend how the miracle is possible.

Some things and/or beings might be beyond our ability to understand or describe but if these things are possible, only the scientific method can do the job. The things which might be beyond science are beyond humanity in general. That's what I mean when I say that all claims about reality are subject to scientific inquiry.

The one thing science hasn't and can't answer successfully is "what happens to me after I die?" and "how am I uniquely me".

Actually, science can answer those questions. The problem is a lot of people don't like the answers. ;) You're right that science can't give people a meaningful answer on what the meaning of life really is, because as you say, there isn't one in an objective sense. But assuming that it can in the future be proven (insofar as science can "prove" anything) that the mind is what the brain does and nothing more, then we will have a final answer to "what happens to me after I die?".

This "controversy" is not what it appears. It is a way for the leaders of the creationist movement to get money and for the followers to feel they are the heroic holders of some special information in the face of mass prosecution. The facts or even what the truth really is are utterly unimportant to the creationist, just as long as they aren't "Darwinist". That's why this stupid argument has gone on for 150+ years now.

It doesn't follow that religion then fills a vacuum on what is moral and isn't.
It's obviously failed on that account. Morals are not determined by religion.
Religion is used to divide people and to create out groups.

There are better ways to maintain a civil and cohesive society.

Religion is not the answer.

It is all about power. Historically religion explained the world around us, to give us an understanding of the world and where we stood in it. It did so by the creation of stories and myths, which came out of human knowledge. This was backed up by real political power, churches could really punish people in the early years.
When science started up there was conflict, because often their findings were not in accordance with the written myths of religion. While religion still had the power to do so they defended their authority as the arbiters of what was truth in both the natural and spiritual world (there was no difference then) and were able to imprison Gallileo for example.
Over the years religion has lost much of its political power except in theocracies, where you can still be put to death for heresies including scientific ones. Science, obviously powerful in terms of technology, has become the accepted means of understanding the natural world. Religion has changed to being more of an arbiter in moral questions, a job it is in some ways ill-equipped to do because it is based on solving human problems at the times the holy books were written. At that time things like global warming were not even imagined, so religion has been poor at coming with the right moral framework.
It is interesting that the science with all its power has never replaced religion as a political force, and that religion, which has a very shaky foundation logically and scientifically still has considerable power.

It is all about power. Historically religion explained the world around us, to give us an understanding of the world and where we stood in it. It did so by the creation of stories and myths, which came out of human knowledge. This was backed up by real political power, churches could really punish people in the early years.
When science started up there was conflict, because often their findings were not in accordance with the written myths of religion. While religion still had the power to do so they defended their authority as the arbiters of what was truth in both the natural and spiritual world (there was no difference then) and were able to imprison Gallileo for example.
Over the years religion has lost much of its political power except in theocracies, where you can still be put to death for heresies including scientific ones. Science, obviously powerful in terms of technology, has become the accepted means of understanding the natural world. Religion has changed to being more of an arbiter in moral questions, a job it is in some ways ill-equipped to do because it is based on solving human problems at the times the holy books were written. At that time things like global warming were not even imagined, so religion has been poor at coming with the right moral framework.
It is interesting that the science with all its power has never replaced religion as a political force, and that religion, which has a very shaky foundation logically and scientifically still has considerable power.

Sorry about the double post the server's system was very tricky it took about 10 shots at getting it up.

The one thing science hasn't and can't answer successfully is "what happens to me after I die?" and "how am I uniquely me".

Oh, really? I think science does point a way:

A1. You're dead. You don't exist. It's all over but the decomposing.

A2. Environment & genetics in some mix.

The problem is, that they're not "comfortable" answers for a large part of the population.

Speaking of natural philosophy as Zimmer did @39 in his helpful (as usual) summary, and of understanding historical events in their own context: what of the "Natural Theology" distinctive to the Anglican Church? This was essentially invented by the theologian Thomas Hooker as a political compromise between the institutional authoritarian Catholic Church which England (Henry VIII) had rejected and the other extreme of England's Puritan and their individual revelations. Hooker deliberately chose the middle path of basing the English (Anglican) Church on both faith and reason, and thus legitimized looking to nature for evidence of the mind of God. Several generations of English clerics thus had side-hobbies of collecting observations of animal and plant adaptedness ... this culminated in the 1830's Bridgewater Treatises which collated all these data. Which Darwin found fertile fodder for his complete upheaval of its interpretation: no mind of God was necessary to explain it all. Natural (and Sexual) selection would entirely suffice. And I wonder if the high honors which English culture so quickly gave to Darwin (with controversy of course) reflect this deep cultural tradition of naturalism based on non-utilitarian motives.

A student from a small college posts a question about one of his book assignments and the author answers. Hundreds if not thousands of people read the exchange, and literally millions more can do so if they wish. Damn I love living in these times.

Caledonian, Are you wilfully misunderstanding me?

You of all people aren't qualified to judge what I do and do not understand.

I'm saying that science alone can't address issues because science in itself has no inherent values.

Wrong, and wrong. Science is perfectly capable of addressing moral/ethical issues, and science DOES possess inherent values: honesty, accuracy, logical thought. Truth, Ms. Gilljam, is what science values.

What do you value, Ms. Gilljam?

Following up on Thwaite [53]: It wasn't just a few clergymen with quaint hobbies on the side who were advocating natural theology. Thomas Willis saw his discovery of the brain's function as an example of God's work. The brain itself was, in his opinion, a beautifully wrought chemical engine. His job as a physician was to fix that engine when it went awry (as with crazy Puritans--Willis was a staunch Anglican and Royalist).

In other words, neurology began as an overtly religious pursuit. Obviously, that changed--but only much later.

Boyle is remebered for his contributions to science.

His dumb opinions about atheism are rightly forgotten.

The same thing will happen to Francis Collins.

I happen to be reading Soul Made Flesh right now as well (I'm not a classmate, just a coincidence) and what struck me is how progress can be halted from all sorts of directions, not just strictly religion. Adherence to the ideas of Aristotle and Galen held back medical science for decades. Religion supported the science that it felt it could incorporate into its views (Thomas Willis, for example, with his immortal, rational soul inside a materialistic body) and rejected those (like Hobbes) who didn't.

As I read, I keep saying to myself, "Thank goodness I live in the world today" (though Zimmer makes you wish you could be there alongside Wren and Boyle, making the pioneering discoveries that are the foundation of our knowledge today).

All said, I have to agree - success in the book always comes from those who put aside their own ideas of how something "should" be and rolled up their sleeves to find out how it actually is.

Since I see we have Mr. Zimmer himself visited this thread, I hope it wouldn't be too fawning to say that Soul Made Flesh is one of the best books I've read in a long time. I didn't think anything would top Parasite Rex, which I think should be read by everyone with any interest in biology, but I am blown away by how Mr. Zimmer weaves a fascinating science history with historical details that are little gems.

Thank you Mr. Zimmer, please continue writing, my friends and I are devoted fans!

Dorid, using that same quote from Fitzgerald:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."

instead of your conclusion:

Science advances because of first-rate intelligences.

I would rather more logically conclude that science advances IN SPITE of "first-rate intelligences".

at least, as defined by your fitzgerald quote.

IOW, yes it takes more intellectual effort to compartmentalize, and it's an achievement when someone with the levels of compartmentalization exhibited by say, Francis Collins, can contribute to our level of scientific understanding. However, why saddle one with the handicap to begin with? surely the handicap of being forced to deal with compartmentalization is not necessary in order to "advance science", and there is good evidence to show that such long term extreme compartmentalization can cause serious damage to the thinking process, again, as evidenced by the afore mentioned Francis Collins, if instead of reading his commentary on genetics research, you hear his ideology on "moral law".

You don't somehow think that all good scientists are only so because they ARE able to compartmentalize, do you?

what a scary thought.

At the risk of obfuscation, some people's "reality" includes a supernatural being, which to them is not necessarily subject to scientific inquiry. And I'm wondering about emotions and constructs such as charity and altruism. I guess you (Janus) would subject all that to scientific scrutiny as well. There must be some kind of psychological reasoning for that too, I suppose. It's just that I respect someone's right to have a different "reality" other than my own, as long as it doesn't impede on others.

Since I see we have Mr. Zimmer himself visited this thread, I hope it wouldn't be too fawning to say that Soul Made Flesh is one of the best books I've read in a long time. I didn't think anything would top Parasite Rex, which I think should be read by everyone with any interest in biology, but I am blown away by how Mr. Zimmer weaves a fascinating science history with historical details that are little gems.

Thank you Mr. Zimmer, please continue writing, my friends and I are devoted fans!

I second your sentiment, Jason.

It's just that I respect someone's right to have a different "reality" other than my own, as long as it doesn't impede on others.

I too respect other's rights to decide to be handicapped, if they so choose, and feel pity for them if it wasn't a choice.

I don't have to respect the choice itself, do I?

should I respect the choice to become a crack addict?

sure, I can respect a crack addict has rights as a person, just like myself. I hardly think I should be lenient of the choices made, though.

any addiction is treatable.

Slugdub:

That site isn't a parody? That fine text on his homepage could only be construed as a parody.

"However, why saddle one with the handicap to begin with?"

Because it makes life more adventurous? (see "pseudofractures", original H2G2 radio series, nerd points!)

Because it makes life more adventurous?

touche'

may you be cursed with an interesting life.

:P

I'm planning to embark on an expedition with three competing ideas in my head. You just don't know you're alive 'til those headaches start, man.

It's just that I respect someone's right to have a different "reality" other than my own, as long as it doesn't impede on others.

Since there happens to be an objective, shared reality outside everyone's mind (as far as we can tell anyway), why not use it to arbitrate "realities"? After all, at some point, someone has to grow up, abandon comforting fantasy, and deal with cold, hard reality. Otherwise we drift aimlessly in a universe hostile to our prosperity - if not to our very survival.

I would also note that it is precisely those people who want their "realities" to forever stomp on the faces of those who will not submit that rouse our anger and most strenuous opposition.

I'm planning to embark on an expedition with three competing ideas in my head. You just don't know you're alive 'til those headaches start, man.

I'm not nearly that ambitious, but I do plan on putting together an expedition to climb both peaks of Kilimanjaro...

(Out of curiousity, why Boyle?)

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."

Yes, being able to hold two opposed ideas in the mind is the height of sophistication, especially when applied to the spiritual areas:

God is a disembodied intelligence who loves us like a father -- God is the Pure Actuality of Being, a Mystery beyond our ken. Which is it? It's both!

Prayer is asking God to step into the natural world in order to change what bothers you -- prayer isn't petitioning God, it's seeking the inner strength to accept whatever happens. Which is it? It's both!

The power of the positive thinking changes the structure of the universe by tapping into the Consciousness which knits reality together and draws your wishes to you by magic -- the power of positive thinking is simply having confidence in yourself and focusing on a goal so that you get what you want by working for it. Which is it? It's both!

Jesus was born of a virgin and died on the cross for our sins in the first century AD -- the power of the Jesus story is metaphorical, expressing not historical truths but moral ones through symbol and story. Which is it? It's both!

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, and is the most powerful means of ascertaining truth humans can experience -- reason and science force us to see reality as it is, not the way we want it to be. Which is it? It's both!

See? It's easy to reconcile science and faith, naturalism and religion. Take two conflicting ways of looking at the same thing, see the superficial similarity of addressing the same issue as deeply significant, get fuzzy on the distinctions, and claim they're both right! The ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function, is the test of a first-rate apologetics.

"Science and religion don't even address the same issues in a culture."

Ooh. A brave claim! Kudos for being gutsy enough to make a claim like that.

On the face of it, it may seem reasonable, but I disagree with it. (I don't like disagreeing with it. I kind of wish it were true. But it isn't. Facts don't go along with preferences. In fact if more religious people understood that, there'd be much less conflict with science.)

Religions do make claims to which science speaks, and they do so all the time.

But first let's clarify some of these slippery terms. What do you mean by "religion" when you discuss it as an entity that "addresses issues"? I suggest you either mean the beliefs as formally laid out it a document or documents, or the beliefs apparently held (and subsequent actions undertaken) by an influential portion of the followers of a religion, and the resulting actions those they influence.

If we're talking about religion as given by religious works (such as the bible), it clearly makes claims, repeatedly, that science can, and does, address. I can quote you chapter and verse if you like. [It's also wrong a heck of a lot (as it would be if it were primarily the work of people in ancient societies primarily made up of herders and farmers).]

There's plenty to choose from, but here's a start: The bible says, in essence, that the ratio of a circumference of a circle to its diameter is three. Now we can measure circular things and see that it's clearly more than three.

If we're talking about beliefs and actions of influential numbers of people (I'm not talking lone kooks, but any cohesive belief that gets enough of a following that people hear about it and discuss it and are potentially influenced by it), then again, religion does attempt (successfully, I might add) to make claims on which science definitely speaks. Again, religion is usually wrong when it does.

An example: Many, many religious people (if the studies are to be believed, a majority of christians in the US) doubt that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.

You may instead have meant to say "religion shouldn't speak on scientific issues", and while I might agree with you, religious people as a whole would not. Most especially since science clearly addresses many issues with a moral dimension, and many religious people don't like the answers that it gives when it does.

Religion, however you like to define it, *does* make claims that can be scientifically tested. Ergo, science and religion decidely do not constitute separate realms.

Here's a few more examples:
(i) Many religious people claim praying for the sick gives substantive help. Studies show that they not only don't help, but prayer is actively harmful to those being prayed for. Do religious people continue to pray? Yes. Do religious leaders continue to advocate prayer? Yes. Do they continue to say that it helps those prayed for? Apparently so. Clearly religion thinks it can make claims about the utility of prayer, even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. They choose to be in conflict with science.

Claim after claim. Testable claims about the nature of relaity.

You may not agree with most of the claims made by religious people, but it's silly to suggest that the claims therefore don't exist, or are not religiously motivated.

Science speaks on pretty much anything that can be reliably measured, reproduced, observed, described. Religion simply does not and will not hold itself apart from those areas. Ergo, a conflict exists.

Keith [71]: Why Boyle? Well, when I started looking into how people figured out what the brain does, I ended up with Thomas Willis, and when I looked into Willis's intellectual history, I discovered how his own intellectual development was nurtured by an amazing circle of friends in Oxford, including Robert Boyle. The two of them were brought together by a passion for what we'd call chemistry. Boyle helped Willis with some of his research on the brain. Willis was able to preserve delicate brains for careful dissection by borrowing techniques invented by Boyle, for example.

I was a bit taken aback by CalGeorge's comment [58]--"Boyle is remebered for his contributions to science. His dumb opinions about atheism are rightly forgotten." If we are going to understand anyone in the history of science, none of his or her opinions can be rightly forgotten.

I'm reminded of how a lot of Boyle's papers were burned in the eighteenth century because they showed just how obsessed Boyle was with alchemy. How could a member of the scientific revolution be mired in such nonsense? So, in an effort to simplify his legacy, someone just decided to destroy the evidence. That's what happens when people start deciding what should be forgotten in order to fit a certain narrative.

Well, you're right. And it's especially important to remember the awful things people say.

Boyle:

To convert Infidels to the Christian Religion is a work of great Charity and kindnes to men. I. In regard of the evills it frees them from, such as, (1) the gross errors and prejudices they had entertain'd before they were instructed in it. (2ly) The vices and polutions they securely liv'd in, before they receiv'd the Gospel; some of which were unworthy of men as such; others very prejudicial to humane society's; and others very mischievous to the vicious persons themselves; and others great hinderances to the discovery and reception of usefull and noble truths. (3ly) The unexpressible Infelicitys that attend the greatest part of such Infidels & wicked Persons, in the future state.

- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boyle/

What a guy.

Nice pick, CalGeorge. Boyle was a seething mass of contradictions (or at least what look to us like contradictions). Utterly fascinating, and still, for the time being, quite mysterious. (Scholars are still trying to decode some of his coded notes--he was scared alchemists would steal his secrets.)

Felicia,

But science in itself can't tell us what decisions we should make. Science can't tell you whether treating HIV is a good or a bad thing, it can only tell you how it could be done. Likewise science can't tell you whether abortions are right or wrong, or atom bombs.

I would say that that's because whether something is a good or a bad thing, right or wrong, is a meaningless question. You can ask whether something is morally desirable to you, or to your community, or to humanity in general. But that's a scientific question, answered by understanding your own psychology and that of other people. Once you've answered it, there's no more to the ethical dimension.

So, minus the insults, I'd agree with Caledonian; science, in its broadest sense, covers every question that can meaningfully be asked. Normative questions, if they mean anything at all, can be rephrased into science-accessible descriptive questions.

I'd like to add another point or two, in answer to harderkid13's original question, which I did not see discussed in the previous comments (my apologies if somebody already brought it up, and I missed it). It seems to me, both as a Christian and as someone trained in religious studies as an academic discipline (my specialty is biblical studies, but I've had a smattering of sociology, anthropology, etc.), that one of the things religious people often want from their religion is stability in the face of a changing and often seemingly-worsening world (pardon me while I plug my ears to avoid hearing "Dr. Dino" scream "Entropy!"). If this be so, then religious oligarchs (in whatever domain their power is exercised) will tend toward conservatism (in the classic definition of "resistance to change"). In Christianity, for example, we can observe lots of emphasis on God being "immutable" or "unchanging"; in Hinduism, we can observe the quest for nirvana, or escape from the otherwise eternal cycle of birth, death, and rebirth; and other examples could undoubtedly be given. One of the reasons that leaders in the Western religions have sometimes resisted scientific progress is because of this inbred conservatism that is a consequence of religious folk's desire for stability.

With specific regard to both Galileo and Darwin, another factor is the importance that adherents to the Western religions generally place on humanity. I hasten to add that one need only look at the Old Testament (my speciality), or the Crusades, or at modern suicide bombings to realize that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have quite often minimized the value of individual human lives. Nevertheless, a theme in all Western monotheistic theologies is the uniqueness of humanity as a species (pardon me while I plug my ears to avoid hearing "Dr. Dino" scream "Kind!") in comparison with all other living things. Judaism and Christianity express this in the "humanity created in the image of God" concept. The harshness of some Christians' reactions to heliocentrism, and later to evolutionary theory, can be explained in no small part by the perception that these understandings of the physical world entailed a "de-centering" of humanity. If the sun, not the earth, were the center of the cosmos (never mind if it were an obscure star among billions and billions of others, significant to us only because we happen to be riding a planet in orbit about it), or if human beings were actually descended from "lower" forms of life, how could we go on believing that God really took a special and unique interest in us humans (never mind, for the moment, the question of God's existence in the first place)? So one reason that leaders in the Western religions have sometimes resisted scientific discoveries is because of the fear (sometimes justified) that those discoveries "demoted" humanity in the grand scheme of things.

Yet another factor is some Christians' devotion to an overly literal reading of the Bible. This has already been mentioned by other commenters and may be a species, so to speak, of the general conservatism I mentioned above.

As a side note, I'd like to put in a good word for not treating Christianity, science, etc. as agents that are actually capable of "resisting" things and "addressing" issues. Those activities are performed by human beings, not by institutions. I realize that speaking of what "Christianity" and "science" do is sometimes nothing more than a convenient shorthand for speaking of what (some) Christians do and what (some) scientists achieve, but it seems to me that the latter types of phrases take no additional effort and are significantly more precise. Moreover, remembering that the agents of actions like "resisting" science and "addressing" issues are human beings--religious folk and scientists and so on, not religions and science and such--is salutary in helping us remember that neither religion nor science is monolithic or univocal.

Dorid,

Here's an Scott Fitzgerald quote that go along with this:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."

I can only say that, taken literally, that seems to me to be nonsense. Taken poetically, it sounds quite nice, but then I'm not worrying about sense anymore. :-)

I'll echo Christopher Heard's thoughts in #87: one of the attractive features of conservative religion is stability, the promise that whatever is true today will be true tomorrow, and tomorrow, world without end, amen.

Religions do change, of course (Baptists no longer advocate slavery; Mormons have rejected polygamy), but such change comes reluctantly, and is often couched in terms that allow religionists to pretend that it's either not a change at all, or at most a minor one, e.g., "we got a new revelation from God that clarified scripture: turns out he wanted us to be monogamous all along; the stuff we said earlier about polygamy was just a misunderstanding".

In contrast, science is seen as ever-changing and unstable. But in this respect, science delivers more than it promises. One example that often comes up is that of Einstein's theory of relativity supplanting Newton's theories of gravity and motion. But under ordinary conditions (trying to throw a softball, driving a truck to Albuquerque, or sending a probe to Mars), you can use either Newton's or Einstein's theory and get substantially the same result. So if it worked yesterday, it'll work tomorrow. What might change is the explanation for why it worked.

Another problem arises when religions glom on to statements that aren't really related to their core beliefs, and which later turn out to be false. This is perhaps most obvious in YECs: it is not necessary to believe in a young Earth or the literal meaning of Genesis to be a Christian, but they do. They've put "Genesis is literal" in the same basket as the benevolence of God and other things that will never change. As a result, when someone shows that Genesis cannot be literally true, they see it as a threat to their entire belief structure.

In contrast, I like to think that the word "theory" is a constant reminder that no matter how well established a scientific theory is, it's not 100% proven, and should only be accepted until something even better comes along.

Religion offers science fiction. Science offers true faith.
Both have been and always will be manipulated.
I believe in the supernatural, because I can not prove it does not exist beyond my senses. I live in the natural. I'm a naturalist.

Is it possible that the mumps virus once benefited human ancestors, enlarging the parotid gland and throat, producing a more hydrodynamic form beneficial to a hominid at seashores daily diving for shellfish?
The only comparable parallels I'm aware of is goiters and beards.

That I research. Not miracles, prophesies and arrogant righteousness.
[contact me if interested in beneficial viruses, not myths]

Science and religion don't even address the same issues in a culture.

Besides the direct comparison of which issues that overlaps, at least in practiced religion, I would add that world views that are based on empiricism typically address more of these cultural issues.

With regards to Boyle specifically, my impression is that it is hard to analyze and understand isolated historical situations. The context, meaning of terms and the difficulties are different and impossible to grasp fully.

It is clear that Boyle and his contemporaries grappled with the difficulties of isolating empirical methods from previous philosophical and religious ideas and dogmas. But to separate out the influence of religion seems hard. Alchemy and astrology stems from religious roots, but how much remained at the time these ideas were abandoned, and how much did they contribute or detract from progress?

It is much easier to assess the current situation. Obviously socio-religious movements such as hardcore creationism tries to counteract scientific progress under the pretext of addressing scientific issues. We can also see that softcore creationism (theistic evolution) or < href="http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/09/whats-wrong-with-this-figure.html">old dogmas (chain of being) consistently confuse and pervert science or its cultural context.

That a statement might be unfalsifiable doesn't change this.

Moreover, we don't demand falsifiability of every statement that connects with theory. Of course we would like to see that, but in practice we accept theories on a subset of falsifiable predictions.

We can also see models (derived within a theoretical frame) based on likelihoods instead of statistical testing, which are provisionally considered even if there are no current complementary tests or tests with enough power. (AFAIK such areas as the concordance cosmology, methods in cladistics, et cetera.)

The missing link:

old dogmas (chain of being) consistently confuse and pervert science.