Confusion About Science and Religion - Part One
March 30, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
My sister sent me a conversation today from a discussion list for people who run planetariums. The concerned participants were trying to figure out how to deal with the wacko Christians who view their planetarium shows and then argue that God created the universe. When dealing with young children, they suggest you ought not tell them they are wrong–just as you would not tell them that Santa Claus doesn’t exist–because this might harm them. And since the adult Christians can’t be reasoned with, the astronomers suggest different clever ways of shutting them up. My favorite is their suggested response of staring down the Christian and saying firmly, “Are you saying that your God is too small to [insert whatever they're arguing against]?!” Apparently, this loaded question shuts them up pretty well.
It’s not difficult to understand why these astronomers feel this way. As you read through their posts, it becomes very clear they have fundamental misunderstandings of 1) what science is and 2) what religion is, and these misunderstandings are at the root of all the incorrect reasoning that follows.
What is science? Science is the study of observable phenomena in order to come to conclusions about reality (i.e., truth). It is a process, a method. Unfortunately, many scientists mistakenly link science with a philosophy–a philosophy which cannot be proven by science. The two separate ideas (one scientific, the other philosophical) have become interchangeable in their minds–science=naturalism. (This is a fairly recent development and untrue of many past great theist scientists.) So as a result, if anyone disagrees with their philosophy of naturalism (the idea that nothing exists outside of the natural, physical world), that person is accused of being against science. It’s a sleight of hand that has been very effective in labeling the ID (Intelligent Design) movement “unscientific” (though they use only evidence obtained through science) and, therefore, unworthy of consideration.
Berkeley professor Phillip Johnson suggests a simple question to reveal a naturalist’s unscientific, philosophical bias: “If the evidence of the natural world pointed to the existence of a creator, would you follow the evidence where it led?” This forces the scientist to separate science and naturalism, picking one choice over the other. This question may seem fairly absurd to him at first since he does not believe the two can be separated, but if you can get him to commit to this–even hypothetically–you have at least opened the way for him to separate the two, see past his naturalist assumptions, and consider the possibility of a different conclusion.
You can see how an assumption of naturalism leads to the inevitable belief that no religion reflects reality. But if this is the very thing in question–if the question is, “Does any religion reflect reality? Did God create the universe?”–you cannot automatically rule out the answer “yes” merely because of your belief in naturalism. You must follow the evidence where it leads–it simply isn’t scientific to limit the conclusions of science to answers that fit your pet philosophy (see my previous post on this).
Every scientist is driven by his or her philosophy; I’m not saying we can avoid this. I am saying, let’s keep all the hypotheses on the table instead of declaring naturalism the only option for anyone who cares about science and reason.
Related posts:
- Confusion About Science and Religion - Part Two
- Newsflash: Christian "Taliban" Destroying Foundations of Science!
- God is Never the Answer
- Richard Dawkins Interview
- Apologetics: Not Just For Theists
- Is Religion Dangerous?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Science, Theology
content rss
April 3rd, 2005 at 11:01 pm
by Han Shot First at 10:50AM (PST) on Mar 30, 2005
“If the evidence of the natural world pointed to the existence of a creator, would you follow the evidence where it led?”
It isn't surprising that people who work in a planetarium would be discussing ways to deal with religious people who try to use the facility as a platform for their beliefs. It also isn't surprising that religious people would be stifled during such a presentation when they interrupt.
Science deals with observation of the natural world. Religion deals with an entirely different realm of thought and understanding. The theory on the part of the religious seems to be that only believers can do “good science.” But science does not exist as a field of study for the sole purpose of proving the existence of God.
So why the perpetually threatened stance on the part of the church? Science can't speak authoritatively regarding religious truths. It can only observe that which is observable. It can't make any moral judgments or statements about ultimate truth whatsoever. And on the same token, religion can only deal with matters which cannot be proven empirically, matters of faith.
If religious then people had more confidence in their beliefs perhaps they would not feel so driven to tear down the process of discovery on the part of non-believers. In response to the question above concerning the evidence of the natural world pointing to a creator, the answer should be yes, if in fact all evidence pointed in that direction. But at the same time, where is this supposed evidence? Is it not all a matter of faith in the end? Should all men of science stop peering into their telescopes and begin studying Bibles for scientific facts about such things as the temperature of on Mars?
Cheers.
Re: Confusion About Science and Religion - Part One
by Face at 12:13PM (PST) on Mar 30, 2005
Han (excellent name, by the way–I agree),
Thanks for your thoughtful comment–you're welcome here any time! I'm posting the second part of this discussion tonight, and it more directly addresses your statement about religion dealing with an “entirely different realm of thought.” I actually quote someone else who used these very words and then examine that concept. So check back tomorrow for more on that one.
It didn't sound like the Christians at the planetarium were actually interrupting presentations, or that they came there deliberately to make trouble.
Regarding the rest of your comment, you're right that the sole purpose of science is not to prove the existence of God. My point is only that science is not the same as naturalism. One scientist can study the findings of science and propose a naturalist hypothesis for the beginning of the universe, and another can study the findings of science and propose a hypothesis that involves a creator. Neither hypothesis is completely provable in the end, and both propose solutions that involve the scientist's philosophy. My claim is that you cannot call the second unscientific if the scientist is basing his hypothesis of a creator on physical evidence. You can't just say, “Only naturalist explanations are acceptable hypotheses.” Do you agree that limiting the answers has the potential of distorting the direction in which the evidence is truly pointing?
That's not good for science. Incidentally, I don't think Christians should declare that scientists can only propose theistic solutions either. All hypotheses should compete openly in the marketplace of ideas.
The example I give in the previous post I cited is that of a scientist finding a man-made artifact in the jungle. There are certain observable facts about the artifact that point to a personal agent as a creator. It is not, therefore, unscientific to propose that an agent created the artifact. It is actually quite reasonable. In the same way, the complex, specific information in DNA points to a creator. There's nothing in the physical properties of the DNA that would cause it to come together in the way that it does. Meaningful information comes from a personal agent. How then, is it unscientific to propose that a personal agent is responsible? If the universe had a beginning, then there was a time when the natural world did not exist. Unless you are prepared to say that something came out of nothing (that is very unscientific!), it is not unscientific to propose a being outside the natural world.
Please be assured that nobody is trying to tear down the process of discovery. Certainly everyone agrees that we should study the natural world to discover how it works.