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 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. — WerMaat

Indeed :up:

"Scientific facts" change as well as religious metaphors. The stories that scientists used to tell are very different from the one they tell now, and the ones they tell in the future may again be very different. It seems many believe that science is now close to truth, and all that remains is to work out the details, but that's what people said too before the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics and computers, so I really wouldn't count on the "scientific facts" of today to be the final version of the scientific tale.

There is also the widespread view that science works while religion doesn't, but that's not right, spirituality works for many people in ways that science doesn't work for them. People who want most of all to feel love and connectedness and meaning don't care much about the latest technologies or about sending spacecrafts into outer space, technology can be a useful tool but they don't see it as the most important thing, as something to idolize. The importance of scientific 'successes' is relative, among other things they have given us the tools to destroy one another more efficiently, the quest for incessant progress has led to the progressive destruction of nature and other species and cultures, and it doesn't look like scientific stories will be enough to make us change course.

We might very well continue praising the successes of science all while continuing to destroy the world and ourselves until our last breath, stuck in the belief that science could find the solution to all our problems. Science can tell people that nuclear war would bring global destruction, but it won't stop people from using nuclear weapons. To say that only science works is to focus on the material while being oblivious to everything else, and that's a religion in itself.

To All
Have you listened to the Rorty clip (above) ? There is no 'conflict' if science and religion are seen as operating in different domains of human necessity. Ostensibly, science operates in the domain of 'prediction and control'; Religion operates in the domain of 'emotional and social need'. Conflict arises when 'needs' stray out of their domains, like fundamentalist views regarding evolution, or when scientists ask for 'empirical evidence' for a deity.
Unfortunately, it takes a certain level of intelligence and confidence in self integrity to understand this potential resolution in those terms, because social and psychological forces tend to fog a terrain which is already intellectually unreachable by much of humanity. Nor is the 'control' aspect of science 'value neutral' with respect concepts of 'progress', which gives a potential 'handle' to religionists. (as exemplified by the post above).

It depends on the definition of "science" and "religion".

If science is popperian falsificationism and religion is axiomatic morality, then they do not even have common subject matter.

The real question is whether scientism and religion are compatible. Answer: obviously not. The idea that there would be only one epistemic domain, i.e. falsificationism, should not even be taken seriously.

Interesting discussion. I’d always thought of philosophy as a kind of bridge between science and theology in many ways. I guess it depends on where you stand.

Have you listened to the Rorty clip (above) ? There is no 'conflict' if science and religion are seen as operating in different domains of human necessity.

Thanks, this was my initial premise. You can also frame it in terms of the is-ought gap (Hume's law).

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. — Pantagruel

Yes, and I learned that distinction many years ago. It is, however, a distinction of no relevance to the point I've been making.

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! — Pantagruel

You're the one who is ignoring my valid point about the claims of religion. Whether you like it or not, religions do make factual claims, not just normative claims. Apparently you have nothing to say about that, except to repeat your red herring which has no bearing whatsoever on the point I'm making.

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." — Pantagruel

And the answer is still a resounding no, unless they scrap their most fundamental tenets.

Whether you like it or not, religions do make factual claims, not just normative claims. — S

Sure, but there the core claims do not contradict science. The core claims that many hold, which do not go into the claims that, for example, fundamentalists hold. One can easily be Christian and believe in a God, believe that Jesus had great tips about being good and close(r) to God, and then, yes, that the normative claims are correct. One can not care much about when exactly the world formed and other parts of the Bible that are directly contradicted by science. And there is a distinction between direct contradiction and something not being supported by current models or even seemingly extremely unlikely given current models.

Religions don't make claims; people make claims. — Janus

Oh really? Thanks for pointing that out. :roll:

But people make religions, and they make them with commitments which can be expressed through language. And that's what I was referring to. If you're a Christian, for example, then that means that you have a set of key beliefs, or things you'd claim to be true.

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.. — Janus

Yes, and that's basically a repetition of an earlier response which I've already addressed, so please see my earlier response to this.

I think the consensus is that you are conflating the opinions of individuals with principles of the systems to which those individuals declare allegiance. I certainly can easily understand the difference between those two things. Not everything a scientist says is scientific any more than everything a priest says is spiritual.

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

Not the same thing at all. He, apparently, was trying to exclude any religion which makes factual claims, whereas I'm saying that the term "theism" doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean, and it must have a meaning in distinction from atheism.

This is how Google dictionary defines theism:

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Are you seriously going to tell me that a theist would claim that that is a metaphor, too, like everything else? A metaphor for what? And what would distinguish them from an atheist?

Cut the crap, I say. No actual theist believes that that's just a metaphor. They really do believe that there's a Being, namely God, who literally created the universe. No actual theist really believes that the entirely of the scriptures which comprise their religion contains not a single literal passage, but instead is full of nothing but metaphor. No actual theist has a set of beliefs which are entirely consistent with atheism, or else they're a theist in name only.

Cut the crap, I say. No actual theist believes that that's just a metaphor. They really do believe that there a Being, namely God, who literally created the universe. No actual theist really believes that the entirely of the scriptures which comprise their religion contains not a single literal passage, but instead is full of nothing but metaphor. No actual theist has a set of beliefs which are entirely consistent with atheism, or else they're a theist in name only.

You have just committed the no true Scotsman fallacy.

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. — Coben

So then you should agree with the point that I was making, namely that there are at least some key beliefs which must be taken literally. And these beliefs are not supported by science. Unless you know something that I don't, i.e. that some group of scientists, say, has just discovered God and Heaven after running some lab tests.

No? Didn't think so.

Hence the ridiculousness of saying that the two are compatible.

I agree that science is a well-defined field of practice, exemplified by the steps of the scientific method which are unambiguous and therefore nothing like a Scotsman in any sense of the word. Likewise, the cultural project of spirituality has a global sense that is not reducible to any individual expression thereof.

You have just committed the no true Scotsman fallacy. — Pantagruel

Bullshit. I'm just talking about what theists believe. The answers you'd get if you went out into the real world and spoke to theist after theist. Do you think you know of an exception? There must be some definition of theism or set of criteria for one to count as a theist. I'm simply abiding by the conventional definition, which is meaningful. Are you going by some idiosyncratic meaning which suits your own beliefs, ideals, preconceived notions...?

You literally used the term "no actual theist" in exactly the paradigmatic sense of the fallacy's "no true Scotsman."

So then you should agree with the point that I was making, namely that there are at least some key beliefs which must be taken literally — S

for it to be a theism, yes. I wouldn't stop someone in argument or in any other way from saying they are Christian but consider God to be a metaphor for a non-sentient universe or something, but then that's no longer a theism

And these beliefs are not supported by science. — S

And there it is. Not supported is not the same as incompatible.

This would mean that current scientists who have beliefs that are not currenly supported by science, but will be next month or in twenty years or more have beliefs that are incompatible with science. It would mean that lots of people, both scientists and non-scientists, who have been correct had beliefs that were incompatible with science, when in fact it was merely that their beliefs were not supported (or falsified) by current science.

No? Didn't think so. — S

Lose the attitude.

Things that are not supported
is a set of things
that is not the same as the set of things that are incompatible. The latter is a smaller subset of the former. And that's not even getting into revision related to induction.

I'll give a specific example: rogue waves. Individuals at sea reported seeing solitary huge waves. scientists poo pooed these sightings as emotionally influenced estimations or hallucinations. Then technology changed and there were videos. Then it changed more, and satellite images showed them. Now the scientists set about explaining it.

The rogue waves were not incompatible with current science. But there were not supported in any way by current models. Yet, some set of scientists thought in binary and conflating terms.

If there is nothing to support it in current science, then it is incompatible. That's binary. There is the category of things that are not supported now but that may be later. And some of those are true or science itself is complete.

You literally used the term "no actual theist" in exactly the paradigmatic sense of the fallacy's "no true Scotsman." — Pantagruel

So what's the exception that I'm wrongfully excluding? Explain yourself properly if you're going to accuse me of committing the fallacy.

No true scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
No true theist believes that scriptures are metaphorical.

You can believe there is a divine being without believing scriptures are literal or factual. There is absolutely, absolutely no reason that those two beliefs have to be interdependent. Except that you are forcing it to be so.

No true scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
No true theist believe that scriptures are metaphorical.

You can believe there is a divine being without believe scriptures are literal or factual. There is absolutely, absolutely no reason that those two beliefs have to be interdependent. Except that you are forcing it to be so. — Pantagruel

You haven't fully answered my response to your criticism. Again, you must explain how it makes any sense for a theist to believe that scriptures are entirely metaphorical. (I've already acknowledged that some areas of scripture can be interpreted metaphorically, but "some" doesn't refute my position). In what sense are they theist? What does that mean? How are they distinct from an atheist? What's a divine being a metaphor for, then?

Please answer these questions so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

Now you are just committing multiple fallacies. Red herring, equivocation.
The definition of theism is belief in the existence of a deity. Scriptures do not even enter into the definition of theism. Is that succinct enough for you?

Sorry to be curt, but this is getting kind of childish.

There is no 'conflict' if science and religion are seen as operating in different domains of human necessity. Ostensibly, science operates in the domain of 'prediction and control'; Religion operates in the domain of 'emotional and social need'. Conflict arises when 'needs' stray out of their domains — fresco

The problem with that characterization is that people can then claim that "emotional and social needs" can be controlled or fulfilled through "prediction and control", and that's how science gets to the position of authority that it has today, people believe that whatever problem that can be solved can be solved through science and so there is no need for anything else. There are elements of prediction and control and emotional and social need both in what we call science and what we call religion.

I think a more accurate characterization would be to recognize that science is not fundamentally different from religion, the apparent difference lies in that what we call science is more focused on what we perceive with our usual senses, whereas religion or spirituality is usually more focused on feelings.

In any discussion about science I feel it is important to point out the problem of demarcation that seems to be consistently ignored: we can't even define precisely what is science and what isn't science! All such attempts fail in some way. If we say science is defined through falsifiability, there are plenty of so-called scientific theories that aren't falsifiable. If we say science follows a scientific method, there are plenty of practices that follow this scientific method and that are considered non-science. People who call themselves scientists decide what theories or practices they call 'science' to give them more importance, and to dismiss theories and practices they don't like, calling them 'pseudoscience', 'fiction', 'fairy tales', 'unworthy of consideration'.

I would characterize Science as a religion all the same, with its own system of beliefs and practices, that doesn't have inherently a position of authority over other systems of beliefs and practices, besides the authority that its numerous adherents confer to it. At that point Science believers usually react furiously, saying Science tells how the world is, Science has successes, but so do other systems of beliefs and practices, they all tell their own story of how the world is and they all have their own successes, it's simply that what counts as a success within one system doesn't always count as a success within another system, smartphones and spacecrafts and nuclear weapons can be seen as great achievements within one system, while being seen as signs of retrogression within another system, depending on what the system values most.

At that point Science believers usually react furiously, saying Science tells how the world is, Science has successes, but so do other systems of beliefs and practices, they all tell their own story of how the world is and they all have their own successes, it's simply that what counts as a success within one system doesn't always count as a success within another system

True that. I am often amazed at how dogmatic some science disciples can be. To me, the most important aspect of science is always retaining an open mind.

Now you are just committing multiple fallacies. Red herring, equivocation.
The definition of theism is belief in the existence of a deity. Scriptures do not even enter into the definition of theism. Is that succinct enough for you?

Sorry to be curt, but this is getting kind of childish. — Pantagruel

Empty charges without explanation. You clearly don't know what you're talking when it comes to fallacies. I've neither changed the subject nor equivocated my terms.

And to answer you question, no, that's not succinct enough for me because you are, deliberately, evading my questions seeking clarification. You talk about metaphor, yet don't bother to properly explain yourself. If deity is a metaphor, then once again, there's the question of what it is a metaphor of. And if it's to be taken literally, then we're back to my original point that there's no science to support it. You can't both abide by the scientific method, and at the same time make special exemptions without warrant. Therein lies the inconsistency, therein lies the incompatibility.

You are attempting to equivocate scripture and theism. And that is a red-herring. If you don't understand the explanation it's not from its not being provided, several times.

Do you actually have a larger framework within which this obsession to put down this set of non-scientific beliefs has meaning that might conceivably be of some value to the rest of the world? Why don't you just leave the poor theists alone?

You are attempting to equivocate scripture and theism. — Pantagruel

No, that's an erroneous inference on your part. I already quoted the definition of theism I'm adhering to. I've mentioned scripture because it's of obvious relevance in a discussion about religion.

And I'm certainly not going to answer your questions when you've repeatedly evaded so many of mine.

You don't get to make up your own definitions. Theism is what it is. Your definition is convenient to your argument. True Scotsman.

You don't get to make up your own definitions. Theism is what it is. Your definition is convenient to your argument. True Scotsman. — Pantagruel

What a load of nonsense. I didn't make it up. If you were paying any attention, you would've noticed that I said I'd got it from Google dictionary, and this can be easily verified.

Hmmm. Your definition is the one I am using. It clearly has nothing to do with scriptures? Are you feeling ok? Dizzy or anything?

Hmmm. Your definition is the one I am using. It clearly has nothing to do with scriptures? Are you feeling ok? Dizzy or anything? — Pantagruel

When you've read my posts properly, feel free to get back to me for a serious discussion in relation to scripture.