Science and Religion cannot overlap.

[Michael]

I do have some questions about particular areas of study where science and religion appear to me to be in almost inevitable conflict. These have mostly to do with psychology and neurological function. It is possible to analyze, why we have particular moral instincts both scientifically and historically. Does looking at why we have particular moral instincts scientifically trouble you? What about looking at brain function when doing particular kinds of problems, such as reading, math, determining one's own feelings, ascribing feelings to others, meditating, and praying? Why do people believe in a god, can also be tackled scientifically--does scientific inquiry in the area trouble you? I'm not suggesting that these questions should necessarily trouble you, only asking if they do.

Hi Jenny,

No, I'm not troubled by any of those questions. In fact I think they are interesting questions that you raise. I spend quite a bit of time in meditative prayer, and I'm always interested in what is happening neurologically there. For example, I join with Buddhists once a week for mediation and discussion, and I'd be interested to know if our slightly different approaches to meditation have the same or different effects on the brain (I suspect it would be very similar). I'd also be interested in seeing any differences in brain activity between those that have faith and those that don't; I don't see that as a threat to faith, just as I don't see looking at brain activity differences between the blind and the non-blind is a threat to believing that people see things that are real (I'm not trying to stress the 'blindness' of atheism there; I just can't think of an example that does't in some way seem to suggest a difference in sensory capabilities between thesis and atheists).

---

Just back on the OP, I'm interested that, rather than discussing the relationship between science and faith, it is mostly a critique of philosophical arguments for God. I think that's quite a different topic, though I do wonder how many people's faith is derived from philosophical argument. I don't think I've yet met a person who came to faith from any philosophical argument (that doesn't, of course, mean it can't and doesn't happen, but I think it must be pretty rare). Those arguments to me seem to be more about just showing that it is not unreasonable to believe in God (they start with reasonable premises and proceed logically to a conclusion; but they are far from certain proofs), and perhaps appeal more to people who already have faith and want some assurance that they have not gone completely bonkers. Even Aquinas, who is frequently quoted, devoted very little time and space to them; he seems to deal with them just in passing.