ASK A-THEIST: Do science and religion conflict?

[cbayer]

http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N15/worldviewconflict.html

Where do we draw the boundaries between the two types of thinking?

By Aaron Scheinberg and Stephanie Lam
STAFF WRITERS
April 2, 2013

Ask A-theist is a column by Aaron L. Scheinberg G, an atheist, and Stephanie S. Lam G, a Christian, which uses contrasting worldviews to explore questions and misconceptions about philosophy and religion. This week, Aaron chose the question. Send us the burning questions you have always wanted answered by an atheist or Christian (or both), and we’ll tackle them!

Q: Is there a conflict between scientific and religious thinking? Where do we draw boundaries between the two?

Aaron’s answer:

It seems to me that the major religions consist of cultural tradition, claims about reality, and a philosophy of living guided by those traditions and beliefs. Having spent time in Jewish and Christian traditions, I think such traditions enrich us and I am happy they continue, provided they harm no one. We all seek to contentedly lead our lives; our predecessors’ approaches are invaluable guides.

-snip-

Stephanie’s Response:

How do we know what we know? The primary way we gain knowledge of the external world is through our observations and interaction with it. This is true whether in science or faith. What might seem troubling is that, whereas science seems carefully controlled and reproducible, religion in contrast seems like an arbitrary set of beliefs accepted unquestioningly. Presented in that way, the two ways of thinking are incompatible. But I don’t think that’s an accurate picture of “religious thinking.”

more at link

[Jim__]

1. I wonder if Aaron considers the multiverse or string theory to be "scientific thinking."

They're not currently falsifiable. Does he label them "unfounded speculation?" My suspicion is that he doesn't.

I wonder if he labels Freud's ideas about the id, ego and superego to be "unfounded speculation." I suspect that he does.

If both of my suspicions are correct, I'd like to know how he differentiates between these different ideas.

[cbayer]

2. I hope they will continue with this series.

They both seem very bright and sincere, and I think it would be interesting to see them explore other issues, including those you outline.

[AaronSch]

5. Better late than never

Hi Jim,

I was just wondering what comes up when I google my name, found your question addressed to me and thought I'd reply. Not interested in a debate, just clarifying my view.

A point I was trying to make in that article is that "unfounded speculation" is not actually bad or unscientific. It is an essential starting point of science, a way for creativity to enter the scientific process!

Your suspicion here was incorrect: my view is that multiverse and string theories are indeed "unfounded speculation". And lo and behold, most scientists (including myself) don't treat them as if they were true. There's nothing wrong with putting ideas out there, especially internally consistent ones, and nothing wrong with individuals entertaining them as what-ifs. As I said in the article, speculation is FUN, as long as we are able to distinguish it from reality when making decisions.

For me, that's a big distinction: no one is using string theory/multiverse concepts to make decisions in their lives. On the other hand, Freud's ideas are being used this way. (I'll adopt your claim that they're unfalsifiable; I'm not sure of that as I'm no expert - I thought much of his speculation was falsified.) Whole *industries* have grown out of the application of Freud's work. Since it specifically regards our emotions, motives and decisions, everyone has a personal stake when evaluating it. Lies and ulterior motivations abound, and it will be a hell of a lot of work to sort out lies from truth.

String theory might be no more correct than Freud's theories, but given the societal context, Freud's speculations are far more dangerous than string theory speculation. Plus, it's certainly easier to evaluate whether a theory is internally consistent when it is not surrounded by emotion, lies and conflicts of interest - so it will be easier for string theory to become subject to the scientific method should future developments enable its falsifiability.

Thanks for reading my articles, by the way!

[cbayer]

6. Welcome to DU Aaron, and to the Interfaith Group.

I am glad that you came by to clarify and discuss.

[ZombieHorde]

3. This is a difficult question to answer because religion is so diverse.

The best answer I can think of right now is "sometimes for some people."

Some people deny evolution because of their faith, so a conflict is present, while many other faithful people embrace evolution. Additionally, many faithful people clearly label their beliefs as beliefs. There is a difference, in my mind, between the claims "I believe we are reborn here on Earth after we die" and "reincarnation is true," so for me, this is another complication.

[cbayer]

4. That's one of the better answers I have seen - "sometimes for some people".

While there is clearly a large population in the US where there is a conflict (creationism, as you point out, being one of the biggest), there are also people who embrace both and see them as equal but separate ways of living or experiencing the world.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

7. Unfortunately, Aaron, you would be called an "accomodationist" by some atheists

Such as P. Z. Myers. In his article, When Atheists Behave Like Fundamentalists, Keith Kloor says

let’s make one thing clear: This whole either/or framework that PZ and his acolytes insist on is nothing less than a purity test for atheists. How so? Just look, to cite the most obvious example, the terms of debate they have laid out: If you dare to say (as I do) that religion still has some redeeming qualities for people, you’re branded an “accommodationist.” If you dare to say (as I do) that science and religion can coexist, you’re branded an “accommodationist.”

In other words, the party line is "religion is, at best, wholly worthless; it is more likely bad in and of itself," and if you dare to disagree with the party line, you are denounced as an accomodationist. Saying "do you think you should be a bit more moderate and/or at least minimally respectful when talking to believers" gets you called a "tone troll", almost as bad a creature as an accomododationalist.

I tried to carry on a civil discussion with Myers and his merrie men and women on his Pharyngula blog. Let's just say I was not made to feel welcome.