Why Science Is Not in Conflict with Religion

[C C]

http://thehumanist.com/magazine/may-june...t-religion

EXCERPT: [...] My contention is that, ultimately, the existence of a deity is a question of science. Some may be surprised by this because they recognize that science is the systematic study of phenomena in the natural world while religious belief deals with the supernatural, or powers and entities outside the spectrum of what we would consider our natural reality. Yet this is not the case.

All religions, particularly the “big three” Abrahamic religions, make claims about the natural world that clearly fall under the purview of one or more fields of science. For instance, almost all religious traditions involve a creation myth regarding how the universe came into existence. We have scientific disciplines devoted to investigating such questions, e.g., cosmology, astronomy, and physics. Almost all religious traditions include stories of how life originated and how life forms came to be as they currently are. Again, we have biology, abiogenesis, chemistry, and physics to methodically address such questions.

Beyond the questions of the origin of the universe and of life, all religions make claims that their deities influence events in the natural world. A “miracle” is believed to be just that—when a god or a saint intervenes in some way in the natural world, and thus science can gather evidence as to the accuracy or the lack of legitimacy of those claims.

At a more mundane level, most religions assert that their deity regularly intervenes in daily occurrences by choice or in reaction to followers’ prayer requests. [...] As much as theists would choose to deny it, all of these are questions of science, because even if their deity is a product of a supernatural realm, possibly an alternate universe that we cannot detect or measure, once that entity begins to interact with our reality—our natural universe—then it becomes a question of science.

Theists cannot simultaneously insist that they have answers to fundamental questions regarding natural phenomena while also insisting that their claims cannot be examined by science. If such claims are examined, theists can’t reject the findings because they’re inconsistent with their subjective beliefs. And of course, religious assertions have never stood up well to scientific scrutiny. Never has a scientific theory, or even a hypothesis, been replaced with a more viable supernatural explanation. You won’t find any studies on intelligent design published in any credible scientific journal anywhere. Its proponents don’t even have testable hypotheses. Thus, intelligent design doesn’t come close to qualifying as science, nor can its explanations be viewed as legitimate in any objective way.

[...] But because the existence of a god is ultimately a question of science, one should not mistakenly think that it’s incumbent upon scientists to disprove all religious claims. Just as it is inappropriate (not to mention illogical) to ask for empirical research to prove the nonexistence of mythical creatures such as leprechauns, mermaids, and ogres, it is likewise inappropriate to claim that science must prove the nonexistence of a god. The burden is on the believers to provide valid replicable evidence for their contentions, and neither faith nor their holy book qualifies as meeting the threshold for that evidence. This is a point that has been emphasized ad nauseam in a variety of forums, and one theists often simply refuse to acknowledge because doing so would leave them with two options, both unpalatable to their belief system: they would either have to provide verifiable evidence for their claims or they would have to question and/or abandon them....

[Yazata]

I think that the thread title of this one should be 'Why Science IS in Conflict with Religion'. As such, it would seem to be consistent with a great deal of so-called "new atheist" rhetoric. There's a whole genre of books arguing that science and religion are in fundamental conflict. It's a little ironic, since most professional historians of science have given up that 19th century thesis.

EXCERPT: [...] My contention is that, ultimately, the existence of a deity is a question of science Some may be surprised by this because they recognize that science is the systematic study of phenomena in the natural world while religious belief deals with the supernatural, or powers and entities outside the spectrum of what we would consider our natural reality.

Methodological naturalism would suggest that non-physical realms of being are outside the scope of natural science. That creates some problems regarding mathematics, which seemingly isn't physical, isn't amenable to physical observation or laboratory experiments, yet is fundamental to science.

Yet this is not the case.

All religions, particularly the “big three” Abrahamic religions, make claims about the natural world that clearly fall under the purview of one or more fields of science.

Atheists are as bad as fundies, when it comes to understanding and implicitly defining religion in terms of middle eastern Semitic theism.

For instance, almost all religious traditions involve a creation myth regarding how the universe came into existence. We have scientific disciplines devoted to investigating such questions, e.g., cosmology, astronomy, and physics.

Of course physics is absolutely impotent when it comes to explaining the 'something from nothing' problem. (Atheists like Krauss would loudly disagree, I'm sure.) The problem the physicists and comologists face is that when they try to explain the appearance of the universe from the principles of quantum mechanics or whatever it is, they are still assuming the existence of the principles of quantum mechanics. So they aren't explaining how something might have come from nothing, but rather are trying to explain how tangible physical reality might have come from abstract principles. They have no answer to the question where those principles came from.

Almost all religious traditions include stories of how life originated and how life forms came to be as they currently are. Again, we have biology, abiogenesis, chemistry, and physics to methodically address such questions.

At this point, all of those hypotheses about the origin of life are speculative.

Beyond the questions of the origin of the universe and of life, all religions make claims that their deities influence events in the natural world. A “miracle” is believed to be just that—when a god or a saint intervenes in some way in the natural world, and thus science can gather evidence as to the accuracy or the lack of legitimacy of those claims.

How can science address miracles? Miracles would a a-nomic events by their nature, wouldn't they? By that I mean events that don't conform to any 'law of nature'. So how could science reach any conclusions about them with its vaunted "scientific method"? How could experiment or verification be applicable?

At a more mundane level, most religions assert that their deity regularly intervenes in daily occurrences by choice or in reaction to followers’ prayer requests. [...] As much as theists would choose to deny it, all of these are questions of science, because even if their deity is a product of a supernatural realm, possibly an alternate universe that we cannot detect or measure, once that entity begins to interact with our reality—our natural universe—then it becomes a question of science.

Again, if miracles are one-offs that don't conform to the laws of nature and can't be called up on demand, how can the methods of science get a grip on them?

And what's to prevent theists from saying that miracles are miracles despite being consistent with the principles of nature? Many young couples would call their first baby a miracle, without intending to deny all the biological stuff about human reproduction. Somebody winning the lottery might be a certainty (somebody had to win) while you being that winner might be miraculous, given the odds.

Theists cannot simultaneously insist that they have answers to fundamental questions regarding natural phenomena while also insisting that their claims cannot be examined by science.

I don't think that most religious people see their religion as a substitute for science. It plays a different role in their lives.

If such claims are examined, theists can’t reject the findings because they’re inconsistent with their subjective beliefs.

What "findings"? I've just argued that physics' attempts to answer the something from nothing problem is just circular reasoning, assuming what needs to be explained. Biologists' attempts to explain the origin of life are entirely speculative. In actual fact, science doesn't possess the answers to either of those questions. In the former case, I don't believe that it ever will.

Of course, I don't think that religion has any credible answers either, but that's not really the point with religions. Religions are about things like enlightenment and/or salvation.

And of course, religious assertions have never stood up well to scientific scrutiny. Never has a scientific theory, or even a hypothesis, been replaced with a more viable supernatural explanation.

And never has science replaced a religion either.

You won’t find any studies on intelligent design published in any credible scientific journal anywhere. Its proponents don’t even have testable hypotheses.

Which is a great argument why science probably can't come to grips with the miraculous. The idea of 'testability' implies law-like regularities. So how would it address events that don't conform to any law of nature? How would it address events where physical causation doesn't strictly apply?  

Thus, intelligent design doesn’t come close to qualifying as science, nor can its explanations be viewed as legitimate in any objective way.

History doesn't seem to come close to qualifying as science (it has no physics-style laws, it deals interpretively with unique and unrepeatable states of affairs), yet it explains things that most people take to be objective facts. My point being that explanations don't necessarily have to be scientific.

But because the existence of a god is ultimately a question of science

At best, the author has argued (unconvincingly in my opinion) that God's interactions with the physical world are subject to science. I don't think that any theist would say that God's existence is dependent on those interactions.

one should not mistakenly think that it’s incumbent upon scientists to disprove all religious claims.

Of course not. As I suggested up above, I think that they would be out of their depth if they tried.

Just as it is inappropriate (not to mention illogical) to ask for empirical research to prove the nonexistence of mythical creatures such as leprechauns, mermaids, and ogres, it is likewise inappropriate to claim that science must prove the nonexistence of a god. The burden is on the believers to provide valid replicable evidence for their contentions, and neither faith nor their holy book qualifies as meeting the threshold for that evidence. This is a point that has been emphasized ad nauseam in a variety of forums, and one theists often simply refuse to acknowledge because doing so would leave them with two options, both unpalatable to their belief system: they would either have to provide verifiable evidence for their claims or they would have to question and/or abandon them....

All of that is centered on what will convince the author. Obviously, if a religious person, or anybody for that matter, wants to get somebody else to agree to something, they will have to convince the other person.

That's just as true for scientists who want to argue that science somehow disproves religion. If they want to convince religious people of that, or even skeptical agnostics like me, the burden is on them. It isn't rocket science, it's basic rhetoric.

[Ben the Donkey]

I'd have a tendency to agree with the original premise, at this point. It might actually come down to the interpretation of the thread title... which was "why science is not in conflict with religion". If it had read "Why religion is not in conflict with science", or "Why science and religion are not in conflict with each other" you'd end up with different arguments. 

But in this instance, it is being hypothesized that science is not in conflict with religion, and is seemingly written to make that argument in the face of a widely held view that it is.  On that point, I'd wonder who was making such an assertion, who believes it... and also note that scientists are not science,  any more than the priesthood are religion.
I don't think science has ever been in conflict with religion, unless religion has initiated that conflict. I'm of the view that science would prefer to ignore the whole thing as an unproven hypothesis and simply get to work on more important matters, but is often forced to defend an argument it has not made... which I think was the thrust of one of the authors arguments. Perhaps the title should have read "science should not be in conflict with religion".

To draw upon Yazata's points regarding the study of "something from nothing", I'd hazard that science is willing to at least investigate the possibility (or rather, the possibility that nothing, in fact, is not actually "nothing" but rather something we can't see yet), whereas religion seems rather definitive on the subject. This is where particle physics grew from. 
Some scientists are willing to acknowledge the "empirically adequate" - perhaps the argument between constructive empiricism and scientific realism might serve as an example. 

It matters not, really, what science has proven or disproven, whether it has the tools to do so, or even if it ever does. 

Science would not deny the existence of god. It would merely say it cannot prove the existence of god, if asked. Any conflict, therefore, would be of an interpretive nature on the part of individuals. In addition, there is the "yet" hovering around in the shadows. It does one no favours to argue from the viewpoint that what we know now is all we'll ever know. 
If science, someday, strives to prove the existence of god, it'll only be after it has first assembled a work shed and has a toolbox. It doesn't seriously try to disprove it, though. 

Where Yazata has said 

At best, the author has argued (unconvincingly in my opinion) that God's interactions with the physical world are subject to science. I don't think that any theist would say that God's existence is dependent on those interactions.

I'd have to say I don't think that's an accurate summary. I couldn't see anywhere in the article that that the claim "subject to" was made. It did say that the questions are subject to science's realm of study, but didn't even go so far as to say science has the duty to study them - more that that the results of scientific study might be evidence in themselves when ascribed to one aspect of one argument or another... but that is the province of those doing the arguing. Like a historical debate. Again, science is not scientists.   
However, I would agree with you that the author has not really chosen some of his points of argument well. 

By the way -

Atheists are as bad as fundies, when it comes to understanding and implicitly defining religion in terms of middle eastern Semitic theism.

That isn't fair, comparing a set to a subset.

Footnote:

In actual fact, science doesn't possess the answers to either of those questions. In the former case, I don't believe that it ever will.

Come on...have a little faith.
/chuckle

[Secular Sanity]

Everyone is probably familiar with Jerry Coyne’s lecture.  I tend to agree with him.  Can science contribute to faith? Yes, by disproving its assertions about the world.  Can faith contribute to science?  No, for we have no need for supernatural hypotheses. 

Jerry Coyne: Why Science and Religion Shouldn’t Cohabit
https://youtu.be/0wCIa_OQ-2s?list=PLqFzb...PxYkM_Y7lZ