Over the last few years a hot topic in the arena of atheism and skepticism has been whether or not science and religion are compatible. In fact, a news release about a recent research finding out of Rice University sported this summarizing title:
Before I get into the finding itself—and explain why the advertised conclusion is bogus—allow me to digress a little.
I propose this potentially enlightening analogy to the science/religion question: Do parenting and partying mix? Or, if you prefer, Are parenting and partying compatible? Notice these are somewhat different questions. The word “mix” strongly implies combination and/or simultaneity of activity. “Compatible”—not so much.
An intelligent response to a simplistically worded parenting/partying question would not be an immediate, categorical “yes” or “no.” Instead, the question would be followed by . . . questions. What do you mean by “partying”? Do you mean they are always compatible, or sometimes compatible? Under what conditions? Please be more specific.
I imagine that most people interpret “partying” to mean something more than enjoying a daytime, non-alcoholic birthday celebration resplendent with balloons and featuring a large, candled cake. Partying implies drinking and cutting loose, maybe staying up late into the night. When the meaning of the word is clarified this way, I believe most people would say, Well, no, parenting and partying don’t exactly mix.
With the question further refined—by adding that by “parenting” we mean raising young children rather than a continued involvement in the lives of adult children—the matter becomes even clearer.
As I see it, parenting relies on more disciplined behavior; partying, less disciplined. In this regard, to claim that more disciplined behavior can mix with less disciplined behavior is to contrive an unrealistic relationship. And to engage in questionable logic. To make the two seem compatible-ish, should we portray parenting as a more sloppy endeavor than customarily thought, partying as having a responsible side? Push them both in those directions and it is easier to conclude, Hey, maybe these things aren’t so far apart after all!
Intellectual fudging aside, we must ask, “Are the activities of 1) being more disciplined for the sake of responsibly raising children, and 2) being less disciplined—putting aside one’s concern over doing the most responsible thing for awhile—for the sake of fun, compatible?” The answer: Well, not really. Surely not in a simultaneous sense.
Because two activities are not compatible doesn’t mean we can only do one or the other. We just can’t do them at the same time. Though they definitely aren't compatible, it is possible to have both in our lives without completely wrecking one or the other.
Back to the science and religion question. The news release to the science finding claimed that science and religion do “mix.” Which implies putting together, simultaneity. And that's bologna.
Furthermore, if the question were rephrased, Can science and religion get along? a generic “yes” or “no” answer would be too simplistic to be helpful. What do we mean by “get along”? Always and everywhere? Most importantly, what is meant by “science” and “religion”?
Some people friendly to religion like to imply that religion is little more than a cultural article, like a favorite hat. Sure, you can do science when wearing your favorite hat! Historically, many if not most great scientists openly wore their favorite hats when doing and talking science!
For most people, however, religion plays a larger and more important role in their life. At least when focusing on those elements that make it distinctly religious behavior.
As I see it, science and religion are activities: they each involve distinct types of behavior and thought. And in terms of behavior, scientific behavior and religious behavior absolutely don’t mix. Praying over a Petri dish is behavior that doesn’t belong in a lab, just as putting a communion wafer into a centrifuge doesn’t belong in church.
On the intellectual side, when doing science an individual engages in more refined thinking. (Einstein once described science as the mere “refinement of everyday thinking.”) All elements are open to criticism and correction. Scientific thinking is specific: it focuses on data, facts and evidence. It aims to support or dispute propositions about causal relations.
Religious thinking, meanwhile, lacks a similar focus on data and evidence and the critical evaluation of causal relationships. Furthermore, an essential element of religion—frequently swept under the rug by accomodationists—is a metaphysical/supernatural element accepted on faith. When making a scientific argument, don’t ever try to claim the validity of a step rests upon faith. You’ll be laughed out of the conference room.
I do not believe it is baldly biased of me to propose that one might alternately describe the difference between science and religion this way: Science relies on more critical, disciplined thinking, religion less. The scientific enterprise values tests, applied controls, logical consistency, objective replication, and the plausibility of an argument as gauged by compatibility with a current body of knowledge. While religious thought might be considered disciplined from one angle—in that there may be ‘right ways’ to think, and fidelity to already established conclusions is expected, even demanded—from another it is the opposite of disciplined. As for analytically "critical"—no way.
In the news release of her science finding, Science and religion do mix, sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund shared this:
[A] majority of scientists interviewed . . . viewed both religion and science as ‘valid avenues of knowledge’ that can bring broader understanding to important questions.
First, that a majority of any type of people hold some conclusion or another—devoid of particular expertise coupled with good reason for the holding—is nearly irrelevant. To use it in an argument is to commit the logical fallacy of “appeal to popularity.”
Truth is not determined by vote.
A second criticism would be the phrase, “avenues of knowledge.” Definitions of knowledge generally begin with reference to facts and information. While scientific knowledge is indeed based upon these—thus having universal validity (uranium 235 is radioactive no matter your culture)—religious knowledge rests not on facts but upon traditional teachings. As for the question of universal validity, one need to only briefly consider the many religious factions and battles to comprehend it is not. The merit of a religious teaching is culture-dependent.
Somewhat disappointingly, Ecklund’s study was based on a subject pool of 275. The method: survey. This type of data might be accurately called “measured opinion.” Which is . . . scientific-ish.
As for the data the headline conclusion apparently rested upon:
Only 15 percent of those surveyed view religion and science as always in conflict. [emphasis added]
Always? Always! Oh heck, we sleep for 5-10 hours a night and in our dreams anything goes. Even I could agree to that statement, and I think that religion and science are fundamentally incompatible.
Ecklund asserts that science and religion do mix because a majority of scientists surveyed said they aren’t always in conflict. Oh boy. That’s a questionable leap.
Additionally, when analyzing research on religion, I try to determine whether or not the authors may have had a pre-existing bias. Which would not invalidate the finding, just cause one to put a mental, “caution” post-it note on the work. What about Ecklund? Consider this sentence of her quoted words:
Nearly all of the scientists—religious and nonreligious alike—have a negative impression of the theory of intelligent design. [emphasis added]
The theory of intelligent design? Any thoughtful person who seriously includes that word with “intelligent design”—which is basically a fancy-schmancy term for “re-gifted” creationism—is either ignorant about what a scientific theory is, or is guilty of playing fast and loose with language. For a reason.
Also, Ecklund’s study was supported by a grant of the pro-religion “John Templeton Foundation.” Again, this isn’t a black mark, just a caution flag. Particularly when examining data of the quasi-inkblot variety.
Finally, consider this non-sequitur of the logical kind (actually, illogical kind):
Overall, under some circumstances even the most religious of scientists were described in very positive terms by their nonreligious peers; this suggests that the integration of religion and science is not so distasteful to all scientists. [emphasis added]
In essence, the above statement asserts that because scientists can like people affiliated with religion, the practice of science and religion are compatible. Excuse me, but, WHAT?! No way. That’s like saying that because scientists tend to describe professional football players in positive terms, science and NFL football are compatible.
Please.
That said, I would like to go on record saying that just as partying is not completely bad; neither is religion completely bad. There is more to life than parenting; there is more to life than science. But don’t go mixing the two. They don’t mix. In the real world, the two activities are honestly compatible only when not mixed.
Tags: culture, rationality, religion
February 1st, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Actually partying often is a prelude to parenting and maybe parenting cannot exist without partying first. So do they mix, ideology aside they are indistinguishable. Especially in nonalcoholic circles.:) You enjoy your prejudice.No I mean it,without prejudice man would never have been able to record any history let alone make it.:-)
February 1st, 2012 at 3:34 pm
PS the generally accepted greatest mind once mused “Imagination is more important then Knowledge,” since most religion is based on non provable history or based on unobservable ideas then in that frame Religion is more important then science, just as life is more important then human law.
February 1st, 2012 at 3:36 pm
PS the generally accepted greatest mind once mused “Imagination is more important then Knowledge,” since most religion is based on non provable history or based on unobservable ideas then in that frame Religion is more important then science, just as life is more important then human, law.