Science and Religion—Two Contrasting Views

On Saturday I opened by New York Times to find articles illustrating two very different approaches that religion can take toward science. The first was a dismaying short AP story in which Pope Benedict XVI was quoted as saying that the creation of the universe is part of an "intelligent project."

The second was a rather heartening op/ed entitled "Our Faith In Science," from Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, who wrote, "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

Pope Benedict XVI quoted Saint Basil as saying some people, "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance."

The record of the Roman Catholic Church in its encounters with modern science suggests that Pope Benedict XVI might do well to heed the wisdom of Saint Augustine who warned, "If we come to read anything in Holy Scripture that is in keeping with the faith in which we are steeped, capable of several meanings, we must not by obstinately rushing in, so commit ourselves to any one of them that, when perhaps the truth is more thoroughly investigated, it rightly falls to the ground and we with it."

Comments

[Herrick and His Balls]

Bailey,

What the pope said is as idiotic as if someone were to put a left-handed DNA helix on the front of their book. Moron!

[Matt]

"If we come to read anything in Holy Scripture that is in keeping with the faith in which we are steeped, capable of several meanings, we must not by obstinately rushing in, so commit ourselves to any one of them that, when perhaps the truth is more thoroughly investigated, it rightly falls to the ground and we with it."

Downright Clintonian. Maybe St. Augustine knows what the meaning of is is?

[JMoore]

How can science prove anything in Buddhism wrong?

[Akira MacKenzie]

Can we put out a general moratorium on religious leaders opining about science? No matter what das Panzer Pope (Though, I'll give the Dali Lama props here. He seems to get it.) says, science and religion do not, nor should they, have a thing to do with each other. They operate on entirely different methodologies: Science operates on evidence and observation. Religion, on faith--the exact opposite of evidence and observation. (No, the scientific method is not the equivalent to faith.) Science changes as new information comes in. In religion, change in dogma is usually branded blasphemy unless it's somehow convenient for the church to change.

Like it or not, "god" is not a science, nor is science a god.

[jdog]

"if we come to read anything in Holy Scripture that is in keeping with the faith in which we are steeped, capable of several meanings, we must not by obstinately rushing in, so commit ourselves to any one of them that, when perhaps the truth is more thoroughly investigated, it rightly falls to the ground and we with it."

Science doesn't have any interest fancy language or faith. A scientific theory is verified by experiment only.

[Akira MacKenzie]

What the pope said is as idiotic as if someone were to put a left-handed DNA helix on the front of their book. Moron!

For the last gorram time: Bailey didn't have a thing to do with the cover art! Take your nit-pick up with the graphic designer who cranked it out of Illustrator. Give the poor guy a break.

[AC]

Akira,

As I understood it, the Dalai Lama was speaking about what causes human happiness, which has traditionally been a philosophical matter. He pointed out that if science (MRIs of brain activity and such) can show what causes happiness, it may be a domain Buddhism must leave.

[fyodor]

Maybe Herrick should imagine looking at Bailey's book in a mirror. Then maybe he'll get over it.

Nah!

[Rob]

Science doesn't have any interest fancy language or faith. A scientific theory is verified by experiment only.

I'd like to see the experiments that gave us bleeding, phrenology, and eugenics. But hey, at least things are different today. Science isn't still pushing such silly beliefs down our throats. Today science has finally broken the shackles of personal bias, and held strictly to the evidence and verifiable theory. Except for 'global warming' and 'second hand smoke', of course.

[zach]

Jesus.

[JMoore]

You see, what you fail to understand about the cover art work is that it is meant to be backwards to you pathetic mortals.

It's the same principle applied in the ceiling at Grand Central Terminal. Shortly after the ceiling painting of the zodiac constellations was completed, someone noticed that the artist had "mistakenly" painted a mirror image. Since the cost of redoing the ceiling would have been prohibitive, the owners simply stated that the perspective is from God's vantage point (i.e., the "other side" of the night sky).

Similarly, Bailey's book shows how God sees DNA. How's that for a defense?

[Sid K.]

Ronald Bailey NEVER believe anything written about the Catholic Church that you read in an news service report, or the mainstream media. The reports are usually factually incorrect and they are IMPOSSIBLE to correct.
Always go to source documents if you want to find out about the Catholic Church.

[Sid K.]

Ronald Bailey NEVER believe anything written about the Catholic Church that you read in an news service report, or the mainstream media. The reports are usually factually incorrect and they are IMPOSSIBLE to correct.
Always go to source documents if you want to find out about the Catholic Church.

[shecky]

I'd like to see the experiments that gave us bleeding, phrenology, and eugenics.

Better yet, find any literature in current journals to support those ideas.

And find why science based on personal bias or faith gets tossed on the heap in favor of better science.

[Larry A]

What's the conflict? Wouldn't an intelligent God design a universe that ran according to rules that are scientifically verifiable? Otherwise it would require constant tinkering, and that's a dumb way to design anything.

I mean, how could you have faith in a God that designs a universe that runs like Windows?

[Stretch]

I'd like to see the experiments that gave us bleeding, phrenology, and eugenics. But hey, at least things are different today. Science isn't still pushing such silly beliefs down our throats. Today science has finally broken the shackles of personal bias, and held strictly to the evidence and verifiable theory. Except for 'global warming' and 'second hand smoke', of course.

Don't confuse science itself with the personal biases and political contortions of those who do the research. "Bad" science is much more prevalent in society that science properly done. That will always be the case, taking people for what they are and given that proper science is normally so incremental as to be completely boring.

Over time, however, the factual evidence will prevail. I don't see too many people who practice phrenology any more.

[Sandy]

I think the Nazi Pope is just trying to tell Catholics what we pirates have known for a long time: the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true religion, because only His Noodly Appendage could have directed the universe in His Sauce-Laden Intelligent Project.

[zach]

Shecky, it's a waste of time. We've all been through this before. Soon he'll be talking about Galileo, quantum mechanics, What The Bleep Do We Know, etc.

Hence my previous answer.

[Akira MacKenzie]

What's the conflict? Wouldn't an intelligent God design a universe that ran according to rules that are scientifically verifiable? Otherwise it would require constant tinkering, and that's a dumb way to design anything.

You're begging the question. First you have to show that there is an "intelligent God", or any other God for that matter.

[jdog]

"I'd like to see the experiments that gave us bleeding, phrenology, and eugenics."

Unlike Faith, Science has the capacity to fix its errors.

[Akira MacKenzie]

What The Bleep Do We Know...

Gah! No! The last thing I need is to watch some con-woman "channel" Atlanteans and a clinically depressed kid throw her meds away to go dance with the trees.

[Herrick and His Balls]

I just want everyone to know that I'm a fucking idiot. I am completely unable to differentiate between the author of a book and the graphic designer, who is hired by the publishing firm to design the cover.

Furthermore, being a fucking idiot, I am completely incapable of understanding that once a book has gone to press, and been distributed to various book stores, Amazon.com warehouses, and libraries, it is far too late to nit pick a rather insignificant mistake on the cover of the book that was made by the graphic designer, and not the author.

So, once again, to reiterate, I want you all to know that I am a brain-damaged, baby-food-eating moron who sits about his house in a puddle of his own filth and drool, and has nothing better to do than to randomly troll and insult authors who have actually published books. Why, quite frankly, it's shocking that I would do such a thing, given that my stratospheric level of idiocy renders me completely incapable of ever actually getting my own work published, mistaken cover or not.

Thank you for your time.

[Viking Moose]

[embarassed silence]

um. thank you, Herrick. and. um [scuff scuff] all three of you.

[x]

Don't confuse science itself with the personal biases and political contortions of those who do the research.

Don't confuse the word of God itself with the occasional personal biases and inherent sinfulness of those human beings who speak in His name.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Herrick, now call up your mommie and apologize to her too.

[zach]

Don't confuse the word of God itself with the occasional personal biases and inherent sinfulness of those human beings who speak in His name.

Oh, snap!

[Hakluyt]

JMoore,

Well, it could investigate many of the claims of Tibetan Budhhist Medicine (which is central to their religious belief) and find them to be in error.

[zach]

The whole concept of Buddhism is so amorphous at this point (especially in the West) that there are very few, if any, empirical claims that could be related to the religion as a whole.

[Daniel Montiel]

ARG! When will the Church learn that there IS no conflict between Darwinism and the faith.
I wish we could get some of these religious leaders to sit for a few days in a quantum mechanics or reaction kinetics class, or, really, any upper level or graduate class in chemistry or physics. 30 minutes of some of the theorems and formulae that control the world will both drop their objections to science and reinforce their belief in God. No one can study tunneling or pericyclic reactions and say that those bizarre systems encourage the belief that there is no God.

[Brian Courts]

Don't confuse the word of God itself with the occasional personal biases and inherent sinfulness of those human beings who speak in His name.

Exactly - like those human beings who wrote the Bible... thanks for pointing that out. Nice to see that we've finally admitted that none of us sinful humans know what the "word of God itself" really is.

[Brian Courts]

No one can study tunneling or pericyclic reactions and say that those bizarre systems encourage the belief that there is no God.

Somehow I suspect there are a few that would disagree with that. Seems a god that designed those systems would be at least as bizarre as the systems themselves and then we're left wondering who designed the bizarre god who designed these bizarre systems.

[Stretch]

Don't confuse the word of God itself with the occasional personal biases and inherent sinfulness of those human beings who speak in His name.

I didn't.

[C Dude]

If the design is so intelligent why is the world...well just look around. If the way the world is going is supposed to be intelligent than I'll confess to being an idiot.

[Daniel Montiel]

Brian,
I guess I should clarify: the bizarreness of those systems to me indicates an author/designer of some kind, whether or not those systems inherited bizarreness from their creator being another question.But my point is that nothing in those systems inclines itself to "rule out" a God. I think that if more religious leaders understood that, they wouldn't pass on these irrational fears to their followers, and we could actually have discussions on things like, "How do we use the products of science?" instead of arguing about whether the scientific inquiry itself into this or that is evil on its face.

[zach]

No one can study tunneling or pericyclic reactions and say that those bizarre systems encourage the belief that there is no God.

Empirical evidence of any kind should not encourage the belief that there is or is not a supernatural God. Anyone with a basic grasp of scientific theory could tell you that, pericyclic reactions be damned.

[Larry A]

Akira: You're begging the question. First you have to show that there is an "intelligent God", or any other God for that matter.

Well, no I don't. My point doesn't presume or prove that God exists. It just shows that there's no conflict between believing that an intelligent God exists and believing in a scientific universe.

IOW since an intelligent God would have designed a scientifically describable universe, a scientific universe is not proof that God does not exist.

Which is exactly the (false) "you can't believe in evolution and God" argument. And the (equally false) "you can't believe in God and science" argument.

[zach]

I guess I should clarify: the bizarreness of those systems to me indicates an author/designer of some kind, whether or not those systems inherited bizarreness from their creator being another question.

This doesn't really make sense. I admit to understanding nothing about the systems of which you speak, but the simple fact that we have a limited understanding of them at present doesn't have anything to do with God. "Bizarreness" is a subjective concept, like complexity. Perhaps (in fact, hopefully) scientists in 400 years will not find such systems so bizarre.

But my point is that nothing in those systems inclines itself to "rule out" a God.

Of course not. But they do somehow incline themselves to the existence of a God?

[Daniel Montiel]

Larry: exactly
Zach: that was kind of my point. Nothing in the study of science encourages a disbelief in God, a common fear of some religious leaders.
I, personally, take it one step further: all of my scientific education actually deepened my faith, especially quantum mechanics. The complexity, hidden layers, non-Newtonian world which has been discovered there is, for me, at the very least mystical. I believe that Einstein had issues with some quantum mechanical theories and discoveries, as the randomness of the universe at the very small level bothered him; hence, his "the old one does not play dice with the universe" comment (paraphrased).
Again, for those purists out there: nothing in science points to the existence of a god, as far as I know (although I missed Scientific American this month; there could be new developments). But for some people, the science of the universe lends itself to the discussion of or belief in a creator, even if it isn't in the theories themselves.

[zach]

So non-Newtonian = mystical? Isn't that ascribing a, well, mystical status to Newtonian physics?

[Daniel Montiel]

Zach: are you inquiring as to my personal reaction to quantum mechanics? Or are you trying to determine if I believe a 1:1 relationship exists, as evinced by your equal sign?

[zach]

Sorry, the former.

[Daniel Montiel]

Personally? Quantum mechanics can mess with your head. I mean this completely in a good way, of course, it's an amazing science--and that's just from the undergrand and grad school physical organic chemist curriculum; I don't have a fraction of the knowledge of an actual physicist. But it's hard to reconcile with every day life, as there are "impossibilities" and rules and laws that don't seem to make sense on a "I throw the ball and acheive a F=ma level of force" thinking. It's not just "more science" in the sense of moving from adding decimal points up to calculus. It's a fundementally different set of truths when you get small enough.
Tunneling, entanglement, uncertainty: dig through wikipedia for some of these concepts and see what they do for you. All I can relate is my own response.

[Jon H]

"The whole concept of Buddhism is so amorphous at this point (especially in the West) that there are very few, if any, empirical claims that could be related to the religion as a whole."

The concentration and mindfulness parts (and their development through meditation practice) are pretty universal, and should be plenty testable.

Most importantly, studying meditators is like studying the brains of musicians, or athletes. It's said that parts of a musician's brain will be developed more than those parts in a non-musician. It seems worth looking into what effect hours of practice has on the brain, when that practice is focused mainly on developing concentration.

[Jon H]

JMoore:"How can science prove anything in Buddhism wrong?"

Buddhism says: Concentration and Mindfulness are important; develop them through meditation practice.

Science could prove that meditation does not, in fact, do anything for concentration and mindfulness.

On the other hand, news came out this weekend that a tiny study of long-time regular-folks meditators (ie, not full-time monks, but they do meditate for about 6 hours/week) appeared to have larger brains than the controls in regions associated with concentration.

Now, the study only had a score or so of participants, so should be redone with a larger group of subjects, but it's interesting, and fits with the studies showing that musicians have more developed brains in areas involved with their playing.

[Jon H]

Hakluyt writes: "Well, it could investigate many of the claims of Tibetan Budhhist Medicine (which is central to their religious belief) and find them to be in error."

Central to Tibetan Buddhism, but not necessarily other forms.

[jdog]

Jon H,

You are no different, and just as clueless, as Pat Robertson.

[robert]

"The Dancing WU-LI Masters" is a good starter for the more mystical side of quantum mechanics. well balanced with zen concepts not christianity

[Hakluyt]

Jon H.,

Yeah, but the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, ergo...

[Jon H]

jdog,

Go suck an egg.

[jdog]

"The Dancing WU-LI Masters"

I read it. It's an OK read, but it's not science. There is no mystical side to quantum mechanics. This post and all the semi-conductors required to get this post from me to you should be proof enough. Shamans do not know how to make a transistor, Western scientists do.

[Daniel Montiel]

robert--I have to admit that I was, in fact, terrified to Google that phrase. I wasn't sure if I was being set up or not. 🙂

And jdog, while I make no suggestions as to what you should go suck, I will say that this
"Unlike Faith, Science has the capacity to fix its errors."
doesn't seem borne out by the record. Theological conventions, having the purpose of changing established religious teachings, often to overcome errors (some theological, some practical) have been happening for centuries. Churches change their teachings all the time.

[Jon H]

hak,

"Yeah, but the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, ergo..."

Yeah, but there are elements that could be tested which are more universal, and arguably even more central than Tibetan medicine.

Meditation is probably a better thing to study, because its pretty self-contained. No mystical input, just hard work on oneself, with the goal to exercise the 'mind', which is becoming easier to monitor through medical imaging of the brain.

[Hakluyt]

Daniel Montiel,

Which in turn causes a schism, the schism much of the time leading to a bloody war.

[Daniel Montiel]

I like jdog's post:
"There is no mystical side to quantum mechanics."
This is an unprovable, personal opinion written to exclude unprovable, personal opinions from having validity. Dude--peoples' reactions and emotional responses to science are hardly the kind of thing you can wish away by atheistic fiat.

[Another Tim Completely]

Criticizing Benedict because he believes that the universe is the result of an 'intelligent project' is, basically, to attack him for being Catholic. You'd be hard pressed to find any variant of Christianity that doesn't believe in an intelligent-- and intelligible-- God. Catholic teaching, in particular, hammers home that latter aspect, in the official Catechism:

"...there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.

"Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God."

All of which is to say, don't take the Pope for a moron, or a fundamentalist. Belief in point mutation and natural selection in no way contradicts faith in divine providence.

[Daniel Montiel]

"Which in turn causes a schism, the schism much of the time leading to a bloody war."

And sometimes puppies die. And rainbows fade away. And leaves fall. And summer ends...

[Hakluyt]

Daniel Montiel,

Then there is the issue of what exactly is "error" in religion or religious belief? Conjure up for a moment a discussion regarding whether Christianity opposes slavery and you will see what I mean.

[Hakluyt]

Another Tim Completely,

As with most Catholic pronouncements, there is a lot of question begging going on in that statement.

[Jon H]

It's funny that the representative of the OLDER religion is the more flexible one.

[Another Tim Completely]

Hakluyt,

I don't think it's question-begging; it's a difference in first postulates. Catholics believe in an intelligent God; atheists don't. If you want to debate whether God exists or doesn't, that's fine. But it's not question-begging whenever a Catholic, who has established his belief in the Diety, applying his mental framework, makes a statement that reflects that belief.

[Eric the .5b]

On Saturday I opened by New York Times to find articles illustrating two very different approaches that religion can take toward science. The first was a dismaying short AP story in which Pope Benedict XVI was quoted as saying that the creation of the universe is part of an "intelligent project."

The second was a rather heartening op/ed entitled "Our Faith In Science," from Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, who wrote, "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

This is the worst Hit and Run post made in a long, long time. It's downright cringe-worthy to me, and I'm atheist who has little time for the Catholic Church (or Buddhism). Of course, the quoted article is as bad.

The Catholic Church quite publically - and in statements made recently, under the leadership of the current pope - has no trouble with evolution. The Pope is not wading "into the evolution debate", at least not by the quoted remark.

The pope focused on scriptural readings that said God's love was seen in the "marvels of creation." He quoted St. Basil the Great as saying that some people, "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance."

OK, pause and absorb. Now, happen to remember the fundamental tenet of Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam? Oh, yeah - there is a Supreme Being that created and directs everything.

Getting worked up over the Pope saying "God runs the universe" and observing, quite rightly, that this is a concept in opposition to a purely naturalistic view of the universe is just absurd. Getting dismayed because the guy in charge of the Catholic Church takes the side of religion in this religion/science philosophical conflict is outright ridiculous.

I mean, good grief, what do you want the guy to do, step down and become a Unitarian?

Further, the reference to Galileo as evidence of "encounters with modern science" is just plain dumb. The Catholic Church corrected itself on this "modern" matter about a century ago. What beliefs of Buddhism have been disproved by science and acknowledged as untrue by the current (or a previous) Dalai Lama?

I really have to wonder at the thinking behind this post.

[Jon H]

Eric the bee:
"What beliefs of Buddhism have been disproved by science and acknowledged as untrue by the current (or a previous) Dalai Lama?"

Did you read it? He mentions how, when he was young, he looked at the moon through a telescope which had somehow found its way to Lhasa. He noted shadows, which would be impossible if, as was the belief in his culture/religion, the moon cast its own light.

(It's a little beyond strict Buddhist teaching, but I suppose it fit with the cosmology that had been handed down in his religious and cultural tradition.)

[jdog]

"There is no mystical side to quantum mechanics."

This is an unprovable, personal opinion written to exclude unprovable, personal opinions from having validity. Dude--peoples' reactions and emotional responses to science are hardly the kind of thing you can wish away by atheistic fiat.

Electrons don't care about your opinion.

[Jon h]

Ah, here's the passage, Eric:

"At one point I became particularly intrigued by an old telescope, with which I would study the heavens. One night while looking at the moon I realized that there were shadows on its surface. I corralled my two main tutors to show them, because this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light.

But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently."

[Eddy]

It's funny that the representative of the OLDER religion is the more flexible one.

That's because he has a different agenda.

[Eric the .5b]

Did you read it?

Yes. He did not identify that "ancient version of cosmology" as being part of the tenets of Buddhism, or a Buddhist stance that had to be changed.

(Of course, I've always wondered about all the claims that people previously considered the moon a featureless, glowing orb and the shock Galileo or the Dalai Lama got when first looking through a telescope at it. Had they not, well, looked up at the moon before?)

[Daniel Montiel]

Hakluyt,
I'm not even sure what argument you are trying to advance. My comment about theological "correction" was in response to an earlier poster saying that faith could not correct its errors. I disagreed. It has its own faith-based process (coupled with democracy and politics) but there is a process by which it can correct errors.

[Daniel Montiel]

jdog
"Electrons don't care about your opinion."
It's a good thing we're not talking about electrons then. I'm glad we could clear that up.

[Jon H]

Eric writes: "He did not identify that "ancient version of cosmology" as being part of the tenets of Buddhism, or a Buddhist stance that had to be changed."

I doubt Tibet of the 40's or 50's would have separated cosmology and astronomy from their particular take on Buddhism. Like much of Tibetan-brand Buddhism, the cosmology may have come from the Bon religion, but it was most certainly a subject covered by his religious tradition.

In any case, unlike the modern Christians who say the Grand Canyon was created in the Flood, he didn't make up stories to force his observations to fit the traditional belief. Which is to his credit.

[Wintermute]

I did a piece close to this (Catholic v. Fundamentalist) 11/03 at my place, but my reader feeds missed the Dalai Lama piece, which I may update it with. Despite making nice with science, the Lama works in one of the same conclusions as the Vatican: that individuals can't be trusted to control powerful science.

OK, it's difficult to have complete liberty in assembling a homemade nuke, even though it's just a difference in degree from making a zip gun; and the peril of loosing an deadly engineered virus can't be dismissed. I think the lightest hand on this is best: focus on mass extermination type dangers; but the Church wants to protect individual embryos. Spokesmen are always rushing into the breach of new science, like Al Gore illegalizing the sale of organs (which is happening abroad anyway btw), or self-appointed "ethicists" sliding down slippery slopes about genetic tinkering and into the media and halls of power courting suppression of research and application of techniques.

Buddha did not set up some supreme being. Some later writings seem to have added some overlays unnecessary to get his point across to smart people but attractive to less intelligent people liking mythological explanations and attractive to those who would organize them into flocks to support their egos and urges to power and their livelihoods and physical plant construction, maintenance, and staffing.

There may be an entity or entities smarter, more powerful, and more mobile than humans, who came around and lit a bush up for Moses etc., you know, like we are starting to be smart and powerful enough to do. But even if so, I don't think it's been around in a while, and I don't think it is going to make me suffer for an eternity if I don't go in for "worship." My best estimate is that the basic stuff of the universe organized itself into more complex structures according to its own inherent properties without some guiding hand; but just the sheer wonder of existence of stuff at all still dazzles me.

[Drew]

Why hasn't anybody mentioned Tom Bethell's book, released today, and already #130 on the Amazon charts: "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science?" It started climbing the charts weeks before its release and all signs are it will be a best seller.

[Jennifer]

Further, the reference to Galileo as evidence of "encounters with modern science" is just plain dumb. The Catholic Church corrected itself on this "modern" matter about a century ago.

Actually, the Pope didn't formally admit Galileo was right until 1992. But the Church currently has no problem with evolution, though it does have definite opinions on "ensoulment."

[anon2]

There's a huge conflict between science and faith, but we're conditioned to pretend otherwise. There are many atheist scientists. Some of them are curious as to why people believe in God, just as there are scientists who are curious about why people believe in all sorts of things (e.g. UFOs, urban legends). If there were no conflict between faith and science, then those scientists will not discover anything that challenges people's faiths.

For if science can explain why people believe in Gods in the absence of any evidence of Gods, and if science can explain why what some people thought was evidence of Gods isn't really evidence, then it's likely that science will cause a lot of children to grow up not believing in Gods. Science has done a good job at explaining all sorts of things so far, so it's certainly not inconceivable that science will keep on producing--even in this impolitic area.

Personally, I think science already has almost all of the pieces put together. We understand that people's faith is largely determined by their parent's faith. We understand how non-faith-related parts of cultures emerge and diverge. We know that the ostensibly omniscient Gods have never shown any significant knowledge of the future. If we look at specific God books, like the Old Testament, we see a God whose idea of morality is not even vaguely congruent with current morality (Who today would think to send a bear out to kill children who mocked a priest?). Many educated people think that relatively well understood aspects of science (e.g. plate tectonics, etc.) explain the tsunami that killed ~250,000 a year ago--it's not that God just doesn't like poor people.

But even if I'm wrong and science really doesn't currently have much of an explanation for why people believe in Gods, and even if science doesn't currently have explanations for why things people believe as evidence for Gods isn't actually evidence, the very fact that there may be a chance that science will do this shows the conflict between faith and science. And a person who believes there's absolutely no chance that science will have such explanations is exhibiting a different aspect of the conflict, for in that person's eyes, something has cordoned off a portion of the human experience and made it impenetrable to scientific inquiry.

Sure, individual scientists can study in other areas (where their equations will not have a God intervention component) and still believe in Gods. A few will believe in a young earth yet still be able to do science in fields where belief in a young earth doesn't matter. We already know that whether or not Gods exist, God believers have contributed very significantly to science in the past. There's no reason to believe that they can't do so in the future. But the nature of faith of the general populace has been changing as science progresses.

BTW, not only do I believe science can largely explain why people believe in Gods. I also believe it can explain why a lot of people claim that there's no conflict between science and faith, even though there is.

[Jon H]

"The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science?"

Just whose politics is it incorrect in relation to?

If you've got Pat Robertson's politics, then science is politically incorrect as-is.

[Hakluyt]

Another Time Completely,

When you make statements about "correct" science you are engaging in question begging. I am well aware of the Catholic Church's ignorant presuppositions, but that by itself is no excuse for what is going on in that statement.

Daniel Montiel,

The point is that it is not an issue of error correction; for it be error correction there would have be some objective standard that they could reach. No, its something else entirely.

[jdog]

"It's a good thing we're not talking about electrons then. I'm glad we could clear that up."

If science doesn't wet your whissle, you can look at this way: I'll eat you before you'll eat me.

[robert]

the recommendation of the wu-li wasters was not advice for a scientific look at quantum physics. rather an interesting comparison of the language used by respected scientific thinkers looking at the nature of very small things and that of ancient mystics considering things unseen.

like when people seriously look at the question of what is is.

[Daniel Montiel]

Hakluyt,
If I understand you correctly, your concern here is not whether religion has a method for correcting itself, instead the problem is that there is no scientific method of determining "correct" or "error"? I can accept that. It's a bit pedantic, but I see the problem.
However, isn't that applying the rules of one side to the other and then claiming it's inconsistent?
Science uses certain rules and methodology to posit and test, accept and reject, etc. theories and laws. Science uses those rules to correct its errors, e.g., new data challenges an old theorem. Religion, well, doesn't do that. It has inspiration, opinion, extrapolation, power-grabs and a host (no pun intended) of other ways, evil and benign, explainable and not, to come up with its rules and laws. Religion will then use those same methods to change its rules and laws over time. So it does change its course, in the same manner in which it chose its original course.
I am not claiming they are the same; I am saying they are both internally consistent. Your point seems to be that since we can't define a logical (i.e. scientific) standard of right and wrong with religion, there is no such thing as correction within religion. I disagree; the standards are simply different for them.

[samba diallo]

Why hasn't anybody mentioned Tom Bethell's book, released today, and already #130 on the Amazon charts: "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science?" It started climbing the charts weeks before its release and all signs are it will be a best seller.

[Daniel Montiel]

"If science doesn't wet your whissle, you can look at this way: I'll eat you before you'll eat me."
LOL
Yes, jdog, I spent 7 years in higher education (most of it in a lab) studying physical organic chemistry because science doesn't "wet my whissle [sic]."
I realize that my having religious feelings while still being a scientist is threatening to some, but try not to apply too many stereotypes to me without at least checking on some basic facts.

[Another Tim Completely]

Hakluyt,

You see it as question-begging to use the term 'correct,' whereas the goal of the catechism's word usage was to be as philosophically precise and consistent as possible.

Your supposition is that the Church's use of caveats is to hide a massive, expansive, but poorly obfuscated opposition to modern science. I think the church is utilizing those caveats to remind the reader that the vast majority of science is correct, but a few slivers-- methods of research or pseudo-scientific philosophical conclusions-- can be immoral from the Christian viewpoint.

[Hakluyt]

Another Tim Completely,

No, their purpose is to put bullshit in the way of those trying to discern their particular agenda.

And yes, the RCC does oppose modern science in many numerous ways - then again, on most questions of freedom, liberty, etc. the RCC always been way behind the ball.

[Another Tim Completely]

Anon2,

You don't have to be a scientist to realize that most religious people hold to the same religion as their parents. You can't hold this to be strictly causative, however, or there could never have been the enormous waves of religious conversion that have made monotheism a majority among religions today.

It is not that religion and science have never collided; of course they have, and religion has ceded ground to science every time-- rightly so-- on the description of the physical world. But these have been edge issues to religion. Fundamentally, science and faith operate in different domains. Science describes what a human being is. Christianity describes how a human being should act.

[biologist]

by the way, DNA can and does exist in both left-handed and right-handed helices in nature

[Shem]

Actually, the Pope didn't formally admit Galileo was right until 1992.

And that was John Paul II's doing. Good old Bennie XVI had this to say about the matter;

"At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just."

[Hakluyt]

Shem,

Happily we are aren't subject to such a "reasonable and just" process anymore. I swear the arrogance and general foolishness of the religious never cease to amaze me. See, they were shown to be flat out wrong, they wouldn't allow open debate on the matter, they banned his works, they forced him to get on his hands and knees and beg for mercy, yet the process was "reasonable and just." What a fucking scumbag Benedict XVI is.

[Hakluyt]

Oh yes, and let's note Galileo's physical health at the time - they forced a near 70 yar old man, who was in ill-health, to get on his hands and knees and beg for his life for writing on a subject which contradicted their undemonstrated notions of the heavens yet was dangerous to a Church hierarchary committed to above all things staying in power. They wasted his mind by forcing him to forgo further research in the area and forcing him to repeat worthless prayers to a non-existant God. Oh yes, it was "reasonable and just."

[Another Tim Completely]

Oh please. Strawmen and mythology.

Heliocentrism was never formally condemned by the Catholic Church; and Galileo's observations were backed up, even at the time, by influential Catholics.

John Paul II commissioned a study on the affair, yes, published in 1992; but the Catholic Church granted an imprimatur (explicit endorsement) on the complete works of Galileo way back in 1741.

Galileo went around pissing off everyone he could find; and it's not the heliocentric ideas he didn't even invent that eventually garnered him enemies and alienated his friends-- it was his sarcastic attitude and his erroneous theories regarding tides and comets.

Here's a good little overview-- a little partisan, but then every other account you've read has been, too:

The Galileo Affair

[Hakluyt]

Another Tim Completely,

Heliocentrism was never formally condemned by the Catholic Church...

Whether that is the case or not they persecuted those who believed in it or gave it some credit and banned discussion of the subject within any area that they had any control over.

...and Galileo's observations were backed up, even at the time, by influential Catholics.

I'm not quite sure how that makes your case any better. Indeed, it merely illustrates the hypocrisy of those who persecuted Galileo.

Galileo went around pissing off everyone he could find...

Yes, his human pride needed to be punished by the Church, right?

...it was his sarcastic attitude...

Oh, woe unto us all for sarcasm. What a terrible offense. It must be punished, and those committing must indeed be forced to grovel on their hands and knees for mercy. Like I wrote above, happily we no longer live under the "reasonable and just" processes of such despicable creatures as Benedict XVI.

The efforts of fools to defend the evil and vile deeds of the Catholic Church (or religion in general) never cease to amaze me.

[Hakluyt]

...but the Catholic Church granted an imprimatur (explicit endorsement) on the complete works of Galileo way back in 1741.

Can you imagine a world run by the RCC's bureaucracy? We'd probably wouldn't have computers or anti-biotics until several thousand years from now if it were left up to them. They make Vogons look effecient.

[Hakluyt]

Another Tim Completely,

I am sure you have a rationale for the vicious murder of Bruno as well. Or the holocaust committed in Croatia against Jews and Serbs by the Catholic Church there in WWII.

All these non-apology, apologies by the Catholic Church end up in the same way. The Church is spotless, it never made an error, some individuals did, but that ain't our fault, blah, blah, blah. Its nauseating to contemplate the sort of morally reprehensible intellectual hoops people involved with such organizations as the RCC will go through in order not to acknowledged how incredibly fucked up their past and present actions are as a body. Another Tim Completely you are example number one of thise particular practice.

[MJ]

"The first was a dismaying short AP story in which Pope Benedict XVI was quoted as saying that the creation of the universe is part of an "intelligent project."

Larry A has this exactly correct. What does Bailey expect the Pope to say on this issue?

Does Bailey mean to say that beleiving that a Supreme Being created the universe to some purpose is inherently anti-science? I find that dismaying, as it implies there is no middle ground between the religious (at least the Catholics) and the radically secular. Several rounds of boos for Bailey and his close-mindedness.

[Viking Moose]

Hak:

"...it was his sarcastic attitude...

Oh, woe unto us all for sarcasm. What a terrible offense. It must be punished, and those committing must indeed be forced to grovel on their hands and knees for mercy."

of course - the Other must not provoke the mainstream, lest the Other get harshly punished. The classical bully stance. And, as you note, without this stance against the Other, you might start questioning your imaginary friend's club! And you can't have that.

[Hakluyt]

Viking Moose,

Heh. Yes, I still don't see how the fellow thinks that his "defense" of the Church's actions makes the Church look any better. It makes the Church look worse.

[Jammer]

I'm not even Catholic and I think much of this is silly. Only a libertarian blog would raise a fuss about the bureacracy of the RCC, its many errors and tardy corrections, while ignoring the simple and uncomfortable fact that it happens to be made up of people. These selfsame screwy people infest governments, businesses, all manner of voluntary associations and even family groupings, spreading chaos and alternately creating or suppressing dissension in their wake.

It has been my observation that people do some pretty wacky stuff in pursuit of souls, market share, or votes. Even, dare I say it, knowledge. It gets ugly out there sometimes.

When it comes down to it, the only really unique thing about the RCC is that it has managed to survive a bit under 2000 years. There may be other organizations with similar lifespans and significantly fewer skeletons in the closet, but I doubt there are many of them.

[Jon H]

"But these have been edge issues to religion."

Except where the religion requires a literal reading of the text.

If they allow any tiny bit to be interpreted as not literally true, they think that calls the whole Bible into question, which they cannot handle.

So, when science contradicts the Bible, they must fight science, lest their whole belief system crumble.

[Jon H]

Another Tim writes: "but the Catholic Church granted an imprimatur (explicit endorsement) on the complete works of Galileo way back in 1741."

It means no such thing. It does not carry an explicit endorsement.

An imprimatur merely means that nothing harmful to faith or morals has been found in the work.

[anon2]

And zerotheism is the majority among scientists today. If there's a correlation between intelligence and atheism, advanced education and atheism and being a scientist and atheism, isn't there a chance that religion is an edge issue of people believing erroneous things. But even if it isn't, if one considers faith globally (i.e. amongst a population) rather than locally (i.e. that of an H&R poster), it certainly appears that science conflicts with faith a lot more than some people acknowledge. Science appears to be breeding atheists; they lack "faith" and they do not turn to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. to learn how to act. The statistics are there regardless of whether God is.

I can't speak for others, but I'm certainly not threatened by theist scientists. I'm not even threatened by young earth scientists. I believe science-in the broad sense-has explanations for why people, even scientists, "believe". Clearly there's nothing preventing people with faith from doing good science. But isn't it possible that as we learn more, the proportion of scientists with faith decreases? To demonstrate a conflict between science and faith, it's not necessary to show that the proportion is decreasing, merely that it's possible.

[Longinus]

How can anyone believe in a specific god? SIMPLE reason dictates that gods are products of the uneducated. Faith is simply a tool some people use to avoid nihilism, a terrible tool produced from fear and ignorance that usually gets people killed. Creationism shouldn't even be an issue. Its preposterous. All Christians are insane for their beliefs. Open your mind!