I asked the same question to my science professor, who is very religious. He said that one could be a believer but still be a man or a woman of science, but he actually didn't give me a proper answer to why it is so.

I then asked the same question to my religion teacher and she replied in a more complete way: she said that a Christian had the right to believe that the theory of evolution was true, or that any other scientific theory or principle was true, because the fact that evolution, for example, is a valid theory doesn't exclude the fact that God could have initiated everything. Of course, if you come from a branch of Christianity that takes the Bible ad litteram, then that's another whole story.

Also, a while ago, I watched a Richard Dawkins interview in which he said that science answers to the question "how?", while religion answers to the question "why?". According to Dawkins, however, the "why?" question was irrelevant, while for me it's actually an interesting query which doesn't necessarily have "God" or "Gods" as an answer.

Agree on the whole. But the so-called 'conflict thesis' between science and religion was very influential in the late 19th century and has spilled over into the popular imagination. Jerry Coyne, a well-known popular advocate of such a view, recently published a book called Faith vs Fact, the title of which conveys pretty well the whole extent of the text.

The career of an evolutionary biologist would be over the very moment s/he opines publicly something like "The known mechanisms of evolution can only account for microevolution, but in order to explain macroevolution we need a transcendent and divine force." — Matias

That is true but there are some interesting borderline cases. There was a very well-known evolutionary biologist of Russian birth but whose career was based in America, by the name of Theodosius Dobzhansky, a central figure in the field of evolutionary biology for his work in shaping the modern synthesis. One of his oft-quoted statements is that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'. Yet later in life he wrote a deeply philosophical and even religious book called The Biology of Ultimate Concern, which was deeply influenced by Pierre Tielhard du Chardin and included a chapter on Evolution and Transcendence. He maintained an Orthodox faith all of his life and this book was written to consider the philosophical and indeed spiritual implications of his life work. I don't believe the term 'intelligent design' had been coined in his day, although I suspect he would never have supported such an idea; but he clearly illustrates the principle that you're arguing for, I think.

Regarding 'methodological naturalism' - I agree with you there as well, but I do think there is an awful lot of leakage from methodological naturalism to metaphysical speculation; non-philosophically-aware scientists will often make metaphysical pronouncements on the basis of their methodological principles (a sterling example being Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing, with endorsements from a number of popular atheists). Of course sophisticated scientists and philosophers realise this error, but there is still plenty of it about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2F2BWLZ0Q

I don't want to derail your discussion, but could you perhaps rename this thread:
"Are science and Christian religion compatible?"
As a non-Christian religious person, I feel a bit discriminated ...
We should carefully differentiate whether we talk about fundamental conflict between a religious and a scientific world view in general (Which would first have to be defined properly).
Or more specifically, as you seem to do, Christian religion and science.

Of course, if you come from a branch of Christianity that takes the Bible ad litteram, then that's another whole story. — Patulia

Evolution obliterating the ABCs of Genesis is no small matter, and so now we know that the Bible can't be counted on in its areas of metaphysics. There is more, too, such as that we know how solar systems form, plus that there is one tree of life, not a separate one for the animals. Further, additional claims of divine inspiration among the Bible's xyzs lose their creditability.

What's left happens to be invisible and so it cannot be known, much less shown; so, religion's dogma, doomed to but a 'maybe', can't even be honestly preached as being a truth, this further diminishing its attractiveness and lessening its impact, driving church attendance way down, even in the once stable northeast.

'God' has become constrained to act in exactly the same way nature would if there were no 'God'.

No theistic religion is compatible with science. And by compatible, I mean fully compatible. So sure, you can do science whilst being religious, but the key tenets of a religion like Christianity are not supported by science, so there's an inconsistency. You don't get to God through science - not if you're doing science properly.

Science and some religions are incompatible. To make even a single step beyond this, we need definitions with which and against which to make sense; imported or imposed, in any case provided.

For a Christian (natural) scientist, God is an absolute presupposition of his science. God made nature, and thus nature is a perfection which a scientist can first seek to accurately describe, and then understand.

In contrast, for some Pagans, nature is capricious, arbitrary, and imprecise. No science, then, in any modern sense is possible. The best that can be done is an effort to describe nature qualitatively - and imprecisely.

And this is in fact the progression from Ancient Greek understanding turned into Christian understanding and modern science, one of the later battles taking place over Galileo's pronouncement that the book of nature was written in the language of mathematics.

Does this mean that modern scientists hold that supernaturals beliefs are in fact scientific truths? Of course not. It does mean that scientists - generally and usually - know the differences between science, religion, and theology and their respective purposes. That is, that there is no overlap. And occasionally the boundaries need to be adjusted.

Even self-proclaimed a-theists presume a fundamental order, the order that grounds everything they do, and that (therefore) counts as "God." Which is one reason that atheism to be other than nonsense must be carefully qualified. He, or she, cannot sensibly deny the existence of that which constitutes in the midst of all that is constituted. If they wish to call it law, well and good, but it begs the question of what underpins that law. This "God," of course, is and must remain vague and unspecified, a presumption presumed not for its truth but for its efficacy. Were it to be subject to science would be ultimately paradoxical, in the sense that it would be some(thing) that could in all and every particular be its own explanation and ground.

The domains of science and religions are (or ought to be, if each is true to its essence) non-overlapping and perhaps complementary. Religion, particularly (what I take to be the exemplar of true religious faith) the contemplative tradition, espouses a higher moral-spiritual experience which purposely distances itself from the secular world. As such it should have nothing to say about science, or other factual domains. Possibly prescriptions about the uses of science, but that is a different thing altogether.

And science is always about facts, or what is. So any normative prescriptions about what is "right" or "wrong" to believe (i.e. Evolution is "right" therefore believing in the bible is "wrong") are NOT themselves scientific. So science and religion are or should be fully reconcilable.

As such, [religions] should have nothing to say about science, or other factual domains. — Pantagruel

Except that they do, so your comment is meaningless. The biggest organised religions make factual claims - factual claims which aren't supported by science.

So science and religion are or should be fully reconcilable. — Pantagruel

But they're not.

And science is always about facts, or what is. So any normative prescriptions about what is "right" or "wrong" to believe (i.e. Evolution is "right" therefore believing in the bible is "wrong") are NOT themselves scientific. So science and religion are or should be fully reconcilable. — Pantagruel

What is is that evolutionary science informs us that humans were not made as is, immutable, instantly, in the form of modern humans; so, Genesis is flat out wrong.

It gets even worse, in that the supposedly divinely revealed 'God' turns out to be a bad role model.

I was careful to say if each is true to its essence. Anything can be bastardized. Science that is true to scientific principles and religion that is not in a state of self-contradiction, two things as they ideally should be, as they purport themselves to be,are applicable to different domains of things.

I am afraid you are missing the point of that. It is NOT the business of science to make normative claims.

I was careful to say if each is true to its essence. Anything can be bastardized. Science that is true to scientific principles and religion that is not in a state of self-contradiction, two things as the ideally should be, are applicable to different domains of things. — Pantagruel

You seem to be committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. I've just brought to your attention the fact that the biggest organised religions do make factual claims which aren't supported by science. It is therefore not the case that these religions and science are reconcilable, and dismissing them along the lines that they're not True religions and therefore don't count isn't a valid response.

If you are a theist in one of these religions who took much of the scriptures as metaphorical attempts to describe spiritual values and processes, this could be compatible with science. And then if you were not bound to scripture, it could also be compatible. IOW consider these culture bound and historically bound texts, but still ones with facets of truth. And then if one is not in one of the Abrahamic religions and none of one's beliefs contradict scientific models.

In contrast, for some Pagans, nature is capricious, arbitrary, and imprecise. No science, then, in any modern sense is possible. The best that can be done is an effort to describe nature qualitatively - and imprecisely. — tim wood

Pretty much any pagan recognizes that there are patterns in nature since they all used patterns, tool use, and passed down and found knowledge of nature, empirically based, to survive, thrive, make and so on.

If you are a theist in one of these religions who took much of the scriptures as metaphorical attempts to describe spiritual values and processes, this could be compatible with science. And then if you were not bound to scripture, it could also be compatible. IOW consider these culture bound and historically bound texts, but still ones with facets of truth. And then if one is not in one of the Abrahamic religions and none of one's beliefs contradict scientific models. — Coben

If you're one of those "It's all a metaphor" theists, then a) you're not really a theist in any meaningful sense, and b) you're not who I was referring to, and therefore beside the point I was making.

I am afraid you are missing the point of that. It is NOT the business of science to make normative claims. — Pantagruel

As said, we get informed.

If you're one of those "It's all a metaphor" theists, then a) you're not really a theist in any meaningful sense, and b) you're not who I was referring to, and therefore beside the point I was making. — S

I am saying that things like the length of time the earth has been here and the universe has been here, iow areas of scripture where religion contradicts theory, are taken as metaphorical. But one still believes there is a God and that there was some guy, for example, Jesus, whose teachings can help one be a good person, come closer to God and so on.

I am afraid you are missing the point of that. It is NOT the business of science to make normative claims. — Pantagruel

But the point you accuse him of missing is a red herring. His point (and it is a salient one) is that there are claims of religion which are contradicted by science.

I am saying that things like the length of time the earth has been here and the universe has been here, iow areas of scripture where religion contradicts theory, are taken as metaphorical. But one still believes there is a God and that there was some guy, for example, Jesus, whose teachings can help one be a good person, come closer to God and so on. — Coben

Yes, there are areas of scripture that can be taken as metaphorical, such as the length of time the earth has been here. But you can't take everything in scripture as metaphorical whilst maintaining to be a theist in any meaningful sense of the word, and this is not a common position. The key tenets, most essentially God, are not widely considered metaphors, and no credible science leads to a supernatural creator of the universe or whatever. In Christianity, Jesus isn't held to be a human like other humans. He is believed to be the son of God, whose holy spirit rose from the grave. Again, this isn't supported by science.

That fact that things are a certain way is descriptive. The fact that they ought to be another way is normative. That's basic stuff. Religions have been debased in their application. So has science. I'm sorry, but if your best response is to ignore when science is not scientific and religion is not spiritual you're not going to be persuaded by anything I have to say (or anyone else for that matter). It's called a preconception or, more accurately in this case, a prejudice. Cheers!

Didn't read the post, only the title. It's no, they're not compatible. Every time a new scientific theory is established an angel dies .

Just because a person is a scientist does not make all of his or her actions scientific. Any more than claiming to be religious makes all of one's actions spiritual. I interpret the question are religion and science compatible to mean could they be compatible, not "are they currently playing well together, as currently practiced today."

Evolution obliterating the ABCs of Genesis is no small matter, and so now we know that the Bible can't be counted on in its areas of metaphysics. — PoeticUniverse

Actually the Genesis creation mythology has little direct connection with Christian metaphysics which was mainly adapted from Greek philosophy.

And unless you believed in the literal truth of the creation story, then the fact that it's not literally true doesn't have a great deal of significance. In other words, if you understand it to be an allegorical story, then the actual physical facts are not that relevant to it. And besides all of that, Big Bang creation theory is quite plausibly allegorised by ‘creation ex nihilo’ - so much so that the Pope had to be tactfully advised not to keep saying in in public speeches.

So, it’s true that science has undermined ‘the literal reading of genesis’, but a lot of Christians could easily say, ‘and so what?’

‘and so what?’ — Wayfarer

So, someone made it up—your foundational page one. Then they could say, "no big deal" or "who cares!"

The biggest organised religions make factual claims - factual claims which aren't supported by science. — S

Religions don't make claims; people make claims. So, within the class of the religious who make, or appear to make, factual claims based on scripture, there is a diversity of interpretation of scripture that exists on spectrum from completely metaphorical to completely literal, and hence there is a diversity of claims, more or less compatible or incompatible with science..

But you can't take everything in scripture as metaphorical whilst maintaining to be a theist in any meaningful sense of the word, and this is not a common position. The key tenets, most essentially God, are not widely considered metaphors, and no credible science leads to a supernatural creator of the universe or whatever. — S

Weren't you just warning against the No True Scotsman fallacy yourself?

As I see it, this discussion is still suffering from the definition of terms. For some, religion is A and science is B and clearly A is incompatible with B. And the others are talking about religion as C, and look at that: C and B are clearly compatible.

My approach would be this:
1. Humans try to understand the world, try to understand how everything works.
That's logical: If you understand the system you can predict the outcome and plan for it. And in the next step you can adapt the system to your advantage, that is: adapt and use nature to your advantage. So we use our capabilities for learning and rational thinking, and we experiment until we have a solid working model of "how things work"
This is what I call science.

2. There are some cases, however, when science doesn't quite work out.
Perhaps they don't have the proper tools and theories yet to figure out the scientific answer, or perhaps they have a scientific answer, but it just doesn't satisfy.
Like that thing with death and immortal souls... Science suggests that once you're dead you're gone. End of story. Human experience disagrees: We remember our dead quite vividly and we feel that they are still with us in our minds and hearts. So a scientific answer may be available, but for many humans it contradicts our social and emotional experience.
Another area where science is not much help is indeed the normative. Science says: you can take that stone and hit your rival's head, and given enough momentum, the stone will break the skull. Science may also give you some predictions on how killing a rival might help or hinder you standing with the rest of the group. Will they fear you? Respect you? Punish you?
But science doesn't tell you in clear and easy terms that killing is either right or wrong.
If you look at ethics, most ethical systems are based on certain unscientific preconceptions, like the Golden Rule, the greatest benefit for the greatest number, etc.

3. We humans hate feeling insecure. We hate to leave questions open, to have fundamental stuff unexplained, something like "Why did this shit happen to ME?"
This is where religion steps in. Religion accepts that we'd rather make up a story than leave a question unanswered, that we humans love metaphor to explain complex and abstract concepts more easily, that we look for guidance and meaning in our lives
So does that mean that religion is false, an illusion, a man-made fiction? Not quite.
Have not science and philosophy themselves shown the fallacies and inadequacies of rational thinking? There are limits to science, and very often the "scientific fact" is nothing but "the model that currently holds up in most tests".
So when we look for answers in other things than our rational mind - what's to say that this does not yield true results? When we turn to emotion and intuition to find those religious answers, perhaps this is truly a way to connect to higher beings, who may choose to help and guide us. I personally believe that the mythology is man-made, but the underlying truth and inspiration is divine.

I think that religion, as I understand it, cannot be proven or refuted by scientific means - that's rather the point of it. Religion explores exactly those areas that lie outside of science.
For the same reason, religion cannot claim to present "truth" or "fact" in a scientific sense, religious truths remain inherently subjective.

Therefore, I see no incompatibility between my understanding of science and my understanding of religion.
So what, if an old creation myth is contradicted by evolution or geology?
Our ancestors didn't have those answers, so the religious metaphor was all they could rely on.
Today, you can choose to discard the metaphor of myth. Or you can understand that it is, indeed, allegorical, and it may still teach you something useful, and then you keep it alongside the science.
Another example: Even if you know that the sun does not move around the earth and is nothing but a big ball of gas: you can still speak about the sun "rising", and you can find profound meaning in a hymn that praises the sun god for nurturing life on earth.

A very pragmatic exposition.

Yes, there are areas of scripture that can be taken as metaphorical, such as the length of time the earth has been here. But you can't take everything in scripture as metaphorical whilst maintaining to be a theist in any meaningful sense of the word, and this is not a common position. — S

Right, I meant that one would take the idea that there is a God literally, and that one can have a relationship with that God, and that the commandments will be of aid in being a Good person, say, and that Jesus' teaching are also an aid in both being good and being close to God and perhaps adding in taking the parts about Heaven literally. IOW the core theist positions. I actually think this is fairly common.

:up:

So, someone made [the Creation myth] up—your foundational page one. Then they could say, "no big deal" or "who cares!" — PoeticUniverse

They could say it doesn’t change the overall meaning. It's a question of interpretation.

The conflict is between literalism or fundamentalism, on the one side, and scientific materialism on the other. Scientific materialism stands in relation to science as fundamentalism does to religion.