America’s ‘Evolution’ Problem

“intended definition”? What is the “intended definition” of faith? Where is this found? The Bible – Hebrews 11:1? Where is the incompatibility with science in having “confidence in what we hope for, assurance about what we do not see”? Even the definition of “science” is incredibly debatable. Do we include such criteria as “falsifiability” or not? It is far more reasonable to say that the two may or may not be reconciled, depending on how you define your terms. Even if you define “faith” to be belief *without* evidence (which is wrong in my mind, but nevertheless, I do know many Christians who would define it as such), they are only incompatible if the scopes of “science” and “faith” overlap. If one’s faith only has beliefs/makes claims that cannot be investigated by science (NOMA), then there is no incompatibility. If “faith” is defined so as to include *reasonable* belief, then there is no incompatibility.   

Thom, I notice you didn’t really address anything that I wrote other than to say you disagree and that religious belief should be justified. Fair enough, I agree that points of view should be supported. But justification does not entail “scientific”, unless that is your “intended meaning”. But that is not what others intend, and that was my point: terms need to be defined. 

Re: 1 – this depends on what YOU consider “evidence”. Obviously a large portion of the world disagrees. More to the point of the OP, if the “god” concept is  such that it wouldn’t make any empirical, testable predictions, then there is still no incompatibility. If there are claims that are testable, and theistic predictions are confirmed, then there obviously is no incompatibility. If they aren’t, then there is an incompatibility with that specific claim – but it does not follow that religion in general is incompatible.  

Re: 2 – I would be curious how something is “proved” to be a fable.

The point of my reply was not to offer an apologetic for any belief that I have; the point was to say that if you claim there is an incompatibility, you need to define your terms. Much of the time people use them quite differently.  

 Religion as an idea is not necessarily in conflict with science as an idea. By which I mean scientific investigation could have revealed proof of religious claims (like gods).

In practice all major religions are incompatible with science, since they all contain disproved claims that are central to their identities. “God of the gaps” arguments try to dance around this, but, for example, a life after death is pretty central to most religions.

If what you’re saying is that *generally* religions make certain claims that science can test, then I agree. I’d even agree that many of them have been falsified. The question is to what degree are religions making claims that overlap with scientific magisteria, and to what degree they are being falsified.

If based on your generalization you want to claim that NOMA is strictly false, then fair enough. But I guess I would also say that *generally* religions make claims that are not testable by science. “God(s) did it” is not a testable hypothesis, and – let’s face it – that’s a non-negotiable at some point for religions in general. So if what you have is a mix of overlapping and non-overlapping claims, it seems to me sensible to evaluate the claims themselves, and not pass judgment on religion as a whole based on experience in only the small segment of “overlapping magisteria”. 

Not everything that is accessible to our minds is accessible by science – at least, not according to it’s “intended definition”. Ha! See what I did there? 😉

Seems to me the pattern is that “Religions make false claims” = incompatibility with science and faith. Non sequitur. Science has made false claims too. 

If religious claims can be/have been falsified scientifically, then they (the claims, at least) are not incompatible with science; in fact, it is precisely the fact that they have been falsified that proves compatibility. You can claim that the *continued* belief in claims that have been falsified is incompatible with “science”, and that would be more solid ground. This would require however, demonstrating which claims have actually been falsified, demonstrating they aren’t just periphery claims (otherwise the incompability is fairly inconsequential), and that there is still widespread belief in said claim despite knowledge that it has been falsified. With regard to the last factor, deliberate belief despite certainty to the contrary needs to be demonstrated because otherwise all you’ve done is demonstrate an incompatibility with consensus, not science itself. 

To demonstrate this would be what Charon was referring to, I think,  when he said ALL major religions were incompatible with science “in practice”. But demonstrating this is a tall order. 

Furthermore, and more to my point, we have already blurred definitions by equating religion with “faith”. Coyne was claiming an incompatibility between science and religions with non-metaphorical interpretations of scripture and dogmas. Ironically, he accuses accommodationists of practicing theology while neglecting his own. But the important point to note is that while one can say that the majority of the religious practice a religion that is, at least in one form or another, in *conflict* with science, it is quite another to say that “there really is no way to reconcile science and faith”. Again, that depends on how you define your terms. Religion does not necessitate a specific exegetical methodology or dogma. “Faith” is not “dogma”.  

I think it is easy to identify the anti-intellectual strains of religion – and no doubt they do exist in abundance – and cyncially claim an intrinsic incompatibility with the religious and the scientific. This ignores history, confuses science with scientism, and in general is just a pretty bad argument rooted in frustration. In reality, what I think we find is that there if definite conflict with certain claims of religions. But that is a much less rhetorically effective claim, I understand.   

Or perhaps my definition of “conflict” is someone else’s definition of “irreconcilable differences.” 

” Coyne was claiming an incompatibility between science and religions with
non-metaphorical interpretations of scripture and dogmas.”

That’s wrong. Coyne claims incompatibility between science and all religions. And he’s right. The scientific method consists in not assuming anything as true until it’s backed by some evidence. Religion consists in believing without evidence. The two are opposite concepts.

Nonsense. Confucianism doesn’t contain beliefs which are incompatible with science. Neither does the atheistic version of Buddhism.

To anticipate the usual objection: Yes, they are 100% bona fide religions, as any academic who studies comparative religion will tell you. Anyone who says otherwise is playing semantic games by effectively redefining religion to exclude anything which doesn’t have beliefs which are incompatible with science.

 Unless you call Conficius a god, confucianism is not a religion.

 Faith means a lot of things to a lot of people, including people who “seriously thinks that it refers to belief” (in a deity), including “belief without evidence.”; Who died and put you in charge of the OED?  Anyway….

Even if I grant you your dubious premise about the “correct” definition of faith….faith in someone, faithfulness in a relationship is trust and loyalty based on reasonable expectation based on past performance.  This can be measured/gauged in human relationships.  Do you adhere generally to the golden rule?  If I scratch your back, do you scratch mine?  Do you have a reputation as a freeloading n’er-do-well?

Some theists would claim their holy books, miracle stories, personal testimonials, etc. provide all the “evidence” they need to affirm this trust/loyalty in their chosen Deity or other god-head.  I (and other atheists) assert that in fact they do not.  I, and those like me with a secular/scientific non-theistic world-view assert that they do not count as legitimate evidence.  We can have reasonable trust in other human beings we give the name “friend”, not least because we can have reasonable certainty they actually exist.  We have a personal history with such people.  Religious people believe their “relationship” and “personal history” with their chosen Deity is of the same or superior caliber compared to such human relationships.  I do not.  I think they are inferior and that they are on their knees at night mumbling to themselves in an inner monologue, chatting with an imaginary friend.

Even children with imaginary friends know not to ask their imaginary friends not to do their chores for them.  They know they will still get the blame if the chores aren’t done…they know (either intuitively or actual trial and error) they can’t push the blame off on their imaginary friend.   Mom & Dad will call bullsh*t on that.  On some level they know such imaginary friends are “just pretend”.  It is adults who have confusion over this when they call their imaginary friend “God” and ask “him” (or her/it) to do things in their lives.

Not at all. It is increasingly common to consider any non-theistic philosophical system historically called a “religion” to be simply a philosophy. That usage is seen particularly as the study of religion and religious philosophy continues to move away from traditional theologians (nearly always religious themselves) to more academic researchers.

“Faith”, like most words, has more than one meaning. The meaning of “faith” when applied to a marriage means something slightly different than the sense in “bad faith”, and radically different from the meaning as applied to “religious faith”.

When discussing religious faith, “faith” means the willingness to accept a set of beliefs without objective evidence of their truth- quite different from “trust” or “loyalty” (words themselves that have multiple meanings).

The meaning of “faith” when applied to a marriage means something
slightly different than the sense in “bad faith”, […]

Not really, no. In each case it means trust. “Faithlessness” in a relationship is a breach of trust. So is “bad faith”.

[…] and radically
different from the meaning as applied to “religious faith”.

Not really, no.

The word does have more than one shade of meaning, that’s true, but they are all derived from the Latin word for “trust” or “loyalty”, and in turn is used to translate a Greek word which means essentially the same thing.

It is this Greek word which appears in the New Testament and the writings of the early Christian church. So at least if you’re talking about historic Christianity it’s exactly the same word as the phrase “bad faith”.

I’m not sure how other religions use the word, or even if they use it at all.

I don’t care how the term was used in ancient times. I care how it’s used now, and “religious faith” has nothing to do with trust (as that word is usually used).

No, you only care how it is used by those who prefer to use the term perjoratively. I have heard *some* Christians use the term “faith” to mean believing “without evidence”, but when I inquire about it, it’s clear that they mean “without proof”, which is obviously not the same thing. So, part of the problem is no doubt some obfuscation on the part of Christians.

Nevertheless, if you’re honest enough to admit, as John J. Ronald does below, that Christians at least *think* they have evidence, then obviously the definition of  “faith” does not necessitate the lack of evidence. As such, there is no reason to insist on using it in this way, unless you are trying to score rhetorical points… with those who already agree with you.

The two are different concepts, not opposites. Science is a way of “knowing”. Religion is not. Religion uses a set of knowledge, some of which may or may not be from science. 

Where it gets tricky is when a theist would claim to “know” something “by faith”. That is where definition of terms comes into play. 

Here’s an honest question: when someone says science and faith are incompatible, what does that actually mean? I know what I mean when I say they are compatible, but I’m not entirely sure I understand what others do when they say there’s complete incompatibility.

That’s certainly true philosophically; the very notion of “supernatural” is problematic, since people who believe in “it” (whatever “it” is) generally believe it’s part of the natural order.

For sociologists and anthropologists, it’s sometimes a useful distinction because it serves as a useful proxy for what you actually want to measure (e.g. high religiosity). But nobody kids themselves that religion requires supernatural beliefs.

 Actually, scratch that. Asking for one academic working in the field who defines religion this way is like asking for one biologist who disagrees with evolution: it’s probably possible to find one or two if you try hard enough, but that wouldn’t actually prove anything.

I don’t really think this is something that can effectively be tested experimentally.

If something cannot be tested, then by what measure have you been able to determine whether or not it’s effective enough for you to believe in it? And how, if you believe you’ve done effective testing for yourself, can you say that same testing cannot be done objectively by others and expect an affirmative result?