Science and Religion cannot overlap.
August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm
(This post was last modified: August 8, 2014 at 5:43 pm by Mudhammam.)
A common belief is that religion is perfectly compatible with science. The argument I will put forth is that they are not reconcilable by rational means. It is philosophically possible for a person to be a scientist and religious, but it is not philosophically possible for a person's religious faith to be derived from the scientific method, and in fact it is antithetical to the very practice of science. That's not to say that a person cannot have rational arguments that are not demonstrable by the practice of science, but it is to say that his/her rational arguments fall in the realm of speculation, and unless one can demonstrate that the given rational argument is the best available--applying Occam's Razor--the simplest, most probable--that is, it coheres with the known facts (and apart from evoking the scientific method, one cannot meaningfully apply OR), then the argument cannot even claim to be speculative science--it is merely philosophical speculation, which history serves to conclude its worth: very little.
1. It is not philosophically possible for a person's religious faith to be derived from the scientific method, and in fact it is antithetical to the very practice of science.
The very definition of the scientific method demands evidence by which we can demonstrate a particular relation between the cause and effect we are making claim to. The more evidence available, the more ways it can be tested under various conditions, the more precise our understanding of its relation to causes and effects, and the more certain we are of its scientific truth. The relation of cause and effect that lie at the heart of all religious claims, including purported miracles throughout history, cannot be verified in this manner whatsoever. The traditional arguments for God's existence--Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological--all reply upon sophistic word games that pretend to be logical, all the while conflating definitions (for example, "causes" and "design"), utilized to apply to the Universe itself without any basis in science or philosophy (both of which must be grounded in our sensations in order to bear fruit). 1) Observed causes and effects within space-time are instead turned on to space-time; this is conceptually messy and scientifically without basis. 2) Natural "design," which is best explained from the bottom up, through Darwinian principles of chance and necessity, with no apparent intentionality involved, is conflated with human design, which necessarily involves planning and purpose. The most we can say about the laws of the observable Universe which allow for Darwinian evolution to occur on certain planets in the Cosmos is that they began to exist. It is unscientific to suggest a cause outside of space-time unless we can hypothesize a mechanism by which this process may occur--a description of an existing state, a "meta"-law--one that requires less complexity than the thing we're trying to explain in the first place. A being that acts outside of time is not less complex nor is it sensible to speak of action outside of time, hence time is either uncaused or eternal--which many physicists have stated is not incompatible with the Big Bang theory if we differentiate between time in our Universe and something akin to meta-time which operates under a different set conditions, in other Universes; the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics could also best explain an eternal multiverse, though this is admittedly in the domain of speculative science.
The Teleological argument fails in a similar way in that it presupposes the conclusion, which, instead of the nature of causality outside of space-time, is the nature of design, conflating human intentionality with the natural processes of matter and energy in motion. The difference between the description of natural laws, say, Genetics or Gravity, is that these are observed to be lawful causes that effect many different entities in motion, which result in a mind-blowing number of competing configurations, some appearing to us to serve a purpose while the overwhelming majority do not, hence resulting in their immediate demise (conversion into other forms of matter and energy that continue "stirring the pot"). "To us" is a very important phrase here as purpose can only be intelligibly applied to beings who think in such terms, beings that do not appear in the Universe, as far as we know, until perhaps roughly 200,000 years ago. If one minor change in the past 13.6 billion years could have effected my own personal existence as it inevitably does for many other entities that die out almost as soon as they appear, the configurations that matter and energy motion create can be called, based on observation, ostensibly random, not designed. At best, if determinism is true as far back as the initial moments in time are concerned, we can either re-orientate our preconceived ideas of matter and energy to weave intelligence directly into their fabric (which seems shaky on both scientific and philosophical grounds), or we can content ourselves with the methods we possess to continue investigating the nature of the Cosmos, with the hope that one of the many naturalistic theories will be better understood, and perhaps confirmed, through further testing of incoming, additional evidence, as our tools improve. In no way does this method or argument logically lead to a personal Creator God, nor any sovereign Being for that matter, as religions largely contend.
2. That's not to say that a person cannot have rational arguments that are not demonstrable by the practice of science, but it is to say that his/her rational arguments fall in the realm of speculation, and unless one can demonstrate that the given rational argument is the best available--applying Occam's Razor--the simplest, most probable--that is, it coheres with the known facts (and apart from evoking the scientific method, one cannot meaningfully apply OR), then the argument cannot even claim to be speculative science--it is merely philosophical speculation, which history serves to conclude its worth: very little.
If God is nothing more than philosophical (rather than scientific) speculation, is it rational? Considering the incomprehensibility often attributed to this deity, the obvious answer is no. Incomprehensibility is not compatible with rationality, as rationality implies comprehension. If God is irrational, then we have gotten ourselves no where that the Universe herself could not have led us to (the whole point of arguments for God's existence is to rule out what are perceived as irrational alternatives). If God can be comprehended in some way and put forth in terms that one can intelligibly describe, is it the simplest explanation that Occam's Razor demands? This question largely depends on what attributes our definition of God is required to meet. If existing outside of the known Universe is sufficient, than a fluctuating quantum vacuum can be called "God," though perhaps unfortunately (since it confuses the thousands of other entities humans have given the same title). If God requires the attributes traditionally ascribed to him by monotheists, then in no way is this a simple being--one who acts outside of time and space (and hence, causality), has full knowledge of all simultaneous and non-simultaneous events throughout history, an unimaginable number, and can do literally... anything, again a notion that creates a number of philosophical absurdities.
In short, religious faith and science are not compatible. Science demands that we not content ourselves until detailed descriptions of phenomena can be given; God is by nature an idea that is designed to elude such an investigation.
1. It is not philosophically possible for a person's religious faith to be derived from the scientific method, and in fact it is antithetical to the very practice of science.
The very definition of the scientific method demands evidence by which we can demonstrate a particular relation between the cause and effect we are making claim to. The more evidence available, the more ways it can be tested under various conditions, the more precise our understanding of its relation to causes and effects, and the more certain we are of its scientific truth. The relation of cause and effect that lie at the heart of all religious claims, including purported miracles throughout history, cannot be verified in this manner whatsoever. The traditional arguments for God's existence--Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological--all reply upon sophistic word games that pretend to be logical, all the while conflating definitions (for example, "causes" and "design"), utilized to apply to the Universe itself without any basis in science or philosophy (both of which must be grounded in our sensations in order to bear fruit). 1) Observed causes and effects within space-time are instead turned on to space-time; this is conceptually messy and scientifically without basis. 2) Natural "design," which is best explained from the bottom up, through Darwinian principles of chance and necessity, with no apparent intentionality involved, is conflated with human design, which necessarily involves planning and purpose. The most we can say about the laws of the observable Universe which allow for Darwinian evolution to occur on certain planets in the Cosmos is that they began to exist. It is unscientific to suggest a cause outside of space-time unless we can hypothesize a mechanism by which this process may occur--a description of an existing state, a "meta"-law--one that requires less complexity than the thing we're trying to explain in the first place. A being that acts outside of time is not less complex nor is it sensible to speak of action outside of time, hence time is either uncaused or eternal--which many physicists have stated is not incompatible with the Big Bang theory if we differentiate between time in our Universe and something akin to meta-time which operates under a different set conditions, in other Universes; the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics could also best explain an eternal multiverse, though this is admittedly in the domain of speculative science.
The Teleological argument fails in a similar way in that it presupposes the conclusion, which, instead of the nature of causality outside of space-time, is the nature of design, conflating human intentionality with the natural processes of matter and energy in motion. The difference between the description of natural laws, say, Genetics or Gravity, is that these are observed to be lawful causes that effect many different entities in motion, which result in a mind-blowing number of competing configurations, some appearing to us to serve a purpose while the overwhelming majority do not, hence resulting in their immediate demise (conversion into other forms of matter and energy that continue "stirring the pot"). "To us" is a very important phrase here as purpose can only be intelligibly applied to beings who think in such terms, beings that do not appear in the Universe, as far as we know, until perhaps roughly 200,000 years ago. If one minor change in the past 13.6 billion years could have effected my own personal existence as it inevitably does for many other entities that die out almost as soon as they appear, the configurations that matter and energy motion create can be called, based on observation, ostensibly random, not designed. At best, if determinism is true as far back as the initial moments in time are concerned, we can either re-orientate our preconceived ideas of matter and energy to weave intelligence directly into their fabric (which seems shaky on both scientific and philosophical grounds), or we can content ourselves with the methods we possess to continue investigating the nature of the Cosmos, with the hope that one of the many naturalistic theories will be better understood, and perhaps confirmed, through further testing of incoming, additional evidence, as our tools improve. In no way does this method or argument logically lead to a personal Creator God, nor any sovereign Being for that matter, as religions largely contend.
2. That's not to say that a person cannot have rational arguments that are not demonstrable by the practice of science, but it is to say that his/her rational arguments fall in the realm of speculation, and unless one can demonstrate that the given rational argument is the best available--applying Occam's Razor--the simplest, most probable--that is, it coheres with the known facts (and apart from evoking the scientific method, one cannot meaningfully apply OR), then the argument cannot even claim to be speculative science--it is merely philosophical speculation, which history serves to conclude its worth: very little.
If God is nothing more than philosophical (rather than scientific) speculation, is it rational? Considering the incomprehensibility often attributed to this deity, the obvious answer is no. Incomprehensibility is not compatible with rationality, as rationality implies comprehension. If God is irrational, then we have gotten ourselves no where that the Universe herself could not have led us to (the whole point of arguments for God's existence is to rule out what are perceived as irrational alternatives). If God can be comprehended in some way and put forth in terms that one can intelligibly describe, is it the simplest explanation that Occam's Razor demands? This question largely depends on what attributes our definition of God is required to meet. If existing outside of the known Universe is sufficient, than a fluctuating quantum vacuum can be called "God," though perhaps unfortunately (since it confuses the thousands of other entities humans have given the same title). If God requires the attributes traditionally ascribed to him by monotheists, then in no way is this a simple being--one who acts outside of time and space (and hence, causality), has full knowledge of all simultaneous and non-simultaneous events throughout history, an unimaginable number, and can do literally... anything, again a notion that creates a number of philosophical absurdities.
In short, religious faith and science are not compatible. Science demands that we not content ourselves until detailed descriptions of phenomena can be given; God is by nature an idea that is designed to elude such an investigation.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
