Coexist, but not together.
Last night, I was talking with my wife, and she pointed out a bumper sticker that her father had just purchased. “See, they include science.”, she said, knowing that I am both an Atheist, and a cheerleader for science.
My initial reaction was pleased, then as I thought about it, I became a little irked. “The problem I have with that…”, I said, “…is that science is not a religion. It’s a totally separate thing, and shouldn’t be included in that list. I’ve seen that bumper sticker before, where the I was the Humanist symbol. That would make more sense. But to include science in a list of religions is wrong.”
Sensing I was on the verge of a rant, she changed the subject. 
But I do want to explore that thought a bit, and here seems like a good place to do it. I think that most of us will agree that science, like skepticism, is a method, a process for learning about things, not a specific belief system or philosophy. If you stop believing in science, your experiments don’t begin failing. They just keep working the way science says they should. Gravity doesn’t work differently for Muslims than it does for Hindus. The laws of thermodynamics remain the same whether you believe in one god, ten gods, or no gods at all. If you don’t get the experimental results you want, then that doesn’t mean science is flawed. It could mean that the experiment, or the hypothesis was flawed, but it does not mean that the methods of science are wrong.
I have great respect for, and admittedly a clinical fascination with, people who can resolve the cognitive dissonance between science and religion. I’m not one of them. However, I understand enough to know that there is a cognitive dissonance there, and trying to conflate science with any religious or philosophical stance, including Atheism, is neither helpful for the science, or the religion. One of my favorite science bloggers is a devout Catholic. Should we give her research a miss simply because of her religious beliefs? I don’t think so. In that sense, the idea of the Coexist bumper sticker could make sense, but again, this is a matter of order. Science is not on a level playing field with religion and philosophy. I don’t say that because it’s necessarily better than one philosophy or another, but because it’s just simply on a completely different field.
I guess to be succinct, I would say that the main difference to me between science and religion is that science requires evidence, derived through experimentation and careful research. Religion simply requires belief. No experiments are required to believe that a white elephant nudged some princess in the ribs with it’s tusk, and she later gave birth, as a virgin, to Siddhartha Gautama, the first Buddha. How do you even test for that? You don’t. You either believe it or you don’t. That’s religion. Science doesn’t answer religious questions, i.e., “Is there a god?”, simply because there’s nothing to test, and no experiments to do. Let science answer the “How?”, and religion answer the “Why?” Don’t confuse the two.
Your thoughts?
Thanks,
-David.
4 comments
I’ve always been curious. How does religion answer the “why” questions in a way that is independent of the particular beliefs of one or another theist. Every religion, it seems to me, answers them differently and there is no principled way to decide which is correct, or at least closer to correct. That’s why the only real conflict resolution method theists have is schism.
RBH,
Your question is exactly the one I think we should avoid, as skeptics. Trying to decide if a religion is “correct” requires evidence that it’s basic premise, the existence of God, is tenable. That requires empirical testing, which is science, not religion.
Everybody’s answer to “why” is going to be different, including Atheists. Trying to find a correct one is a philosophical, or religious discussion, not a scientific one. As skeptics, I think we need to concentrate on what we can scientifically test. Religion isn’t one of those things.
I feel like I still have to point out that science can and does answer why quite well and religion is a nonsensical diversion which is by definition unqualified to answer ‘why’ for anything but as evidence for an overactive agency detector.
Science is the system for answering all questions about reality. Sure sometimes the answer is “We do not yet know this.” but that is the best answer there is assuming it is true.
To give religion a special job to answer why is simply incorrect. Why is the realm of reason and rationality and not religion.
Finally, for most situations ‘How’ and ‘Why’ are interchangable. ‘How come’ is a synonym for ‘Why’ after all. For example, How do the stars march across a clear night sky? They march across the sky because our planet is spinning. It doesn’t matter if you ask the question. How come the stars march across the sky? The answer is the same. For a more philosophical question try “How are we here?”
Frank,
Saying that “science can and does answer why quite well”, and following that up with “sometimes the answer is ‘we do not yet know this’” is kind of like saying “God does answer prayers, but sometimes his answer is ‘no’.” There’s no functional difference between “we can’t answer that question”, and “we don’t know the answer yet”. Neither one truly answers the question. Because the question remains unanswered for the time being, different people are going to feel differently about that. Some will just accept it, some will turn to religion.
As far as the how/why dichotomy here, I’m willing to admit it was probably poor writing on my part and an unfortunate example in this case. However, I still stand behind my point that Science and Religion are two separate things that shouldn’t be confused with one another.
By submitting a comment you grant Central Ohioans for Rational Inquiry a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate and irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin’s discretion. Your email is used for verification purposes only, it will never be shared.