Reconciling Religious Beliefs with Science tips?

[The Nose]

I just found out about brownbag lunch discussion scheduled seven days from now on the topic of Reconciling Religious Beliefs with Science. It will be sponsored by faculty from my university's department of religious studies. I've never been to one of their monthly discussions and don't really know what to expect. I suspect it will be a bunch of theists shredding science into patches to cover the weak spots in their religion(s). I bet there will be mentions of theist cosmology and intelligent design.

I'm not a scientist (far from it), but this campus is fairly conservative and it's likely that I will be the only infidel in attendance; so even though I'm not well-qualified, I really want to go. I will be outnumbered and maybe even outgunned but I'm itchin' for a fight. I don't work in the religious studies department so I don't have to worry about repercussions on my career.

I will start my research tonight. For starters, I will re-read Sagan's Demon-Haunted World and memorize potentially useful challenges. I'll also read articles in the infidels.org library.

I recall a story in which the Dalai Lama was asked what Buddhists would do if science ever conclusively proved reincarnation was false. He answered that they would adapt to the newfound truth. But then he said, "Good luck proving it false." I can't remember (already tried Google) where I read this--can anyone here confirm this story?

Also, I would be very grateful to anyone who will post here any relevant arguments, quotes, or original thoughts on the subject of reconciling religion with science. Books and article recommendations would also be welcome.

[mirage]

I think a point Dawkins makes well (I think it's one of the first essays in the Devil's Chaplain) is that Religion claims immunity from scientific investigation as a separate "majesterium" whilst all the while making empirical claims about the world. He uses the Catholic doctrine of Mary ascending bodily to "heaven".

I also find this "different truths about the world" defence to be disingenuous bollocks. Religion has always made scientific claims about reality. Only once any useful science got off the ground was any distinction made between the two methods of knowing. Religion has been steadily abandoning the falsifiable claims ever since, or in some cases making fools of themselves calling black white (creationism). It still makes empirical claims, it has simply pulled up the drawbridge leaving only the practically unfalsifiable ones exposed.

Attempts to reconcile the two ways of knowing are irritating. Science leads to convergence on an accepted model from many different lines of enquiry. Religion leads to an ever fracturing and splitting proliferation of sects, this despite there actually being some real world checks like the workability of the moral systems each advocate.

Religious attempts to claim "only now scientists are just beginning to realise" scientific discoveries vary from extremely superficial resemblances between (invariably misunderstood) science and scripture,to outrageous post hoc reinterpretation of scripture, to classic god of the gaps.

There is no reconciliation beyond that fact that human minds are very good at compartmentalising and tolerating cognitive dissonance. Science is a good way of developing a consistent model of the world that's sensitive to evidence, religion is a good way of picking an arbitrary model on emotional grounds which can then be defended against any evidence.

[The Nose]

Science is a good way of developing a consistent model of the world that's sensitive to evidence, religion is a good way of picking an arbitrary model on emotional grounds which can then be defended against any evidence.

Thanks, that's one of the points I want to make. My hero Sagan said that science--unlike religion--is self-correcting. When new evidence disproves your theory, you have to dump your theory and get a new one consistent with the new evidence. Here's an example from a page on the CDC web site (http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/keytocure.htm)
In the past, spicy food, acid and stress were thought to be major causes of peptic ulcers. We now know that up to nine out of ten ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection with Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) that can be cured with appropriate antibiotic treatment.
IIRC, there was a scientist who noticed this bacteria was common in pigs that had ulcers. He proved that a lot of human ulcer patients also had this bacteria in their stomachs; he treated their infections with antibiotics and cured them. Now doctors can do more for these people than just advise them to avoid spicy foods.

[x-ray vision]

Originally posted by The Nose
I recall a story in which the Dalai Lama was asked what Buddhists would do if science ever conclusively proved reincarnation was false. He answered that they would adapt to the newfound truth. But then he said, "Good luck proving it false.
From this (http://personal.tmlp.com/hayesboh/uu/sermons/feb1702.htm) web page:
Sagan once asked the Dali Lama what he would do if science was able to disprove a central tenet of their Buddhist faith, and he replied, "Tibetan Buddhism would have to change." Sagan pressed him further. "Even if it were a really central tenet, like reincarnation?", he asked. "Even then," said the Dali Lama. However, he added with a twinkle, "it's going to be hard to disprove reincarnation." Which Sagan readily acceded. Reincarnation and God, concluded Sagan, are "difficult alike to demonstrate or to dismiss."

[someotherguy]

Also, I would be very grateful to anyone who will post here any relevant arguments, quotes, or original thoughts on the subject of reconciling religion with science. Books and article recommendations would also be welcome.

I don't really have anything useful to say, but I wanted to wish you goodluck. Be sure to tell us what happens! :thumbs:

[Thundun]

I will start my research tonight. For starters, I will re-read Sagan's Demon-Haunted World and memorize potentially useful challenges. I'll also read articles in the infidels.org library.

I recall a story in which the Dalai Lama was asked what Buddhists would do if science ever conclusively proved reincarnation was false. He answered that they would adapt to the newfound truth. But then he said, "Good luck proving it false." I can't remember (already tried Google) where I read this--can anyone here confirm this story?


I, too, am certain Sagan is the originator of the above story. I am also almost certain it was in Demon Haunted World ;)

[PatrickHays]

When new evidence disproves your theory, you have to dump your theory and get a new one consistent with the new evidence.

I discussed this topic with my microbiology professor one day in her office . . . After she closed the door so those passing by would not hear (my assumption in the way she looked both ways down the hall before she shut the door) she stated the same. She stated that she held a religious belief (but would not state what that was) and when science discovers something that disproves such, she adjusts her belief to include such a discovery. She did state that she was a firm believer in evolution and that anyone who refuses to acknowledge such because of what someone wrote thousands of years ago was either ignorant or stupid, I could choose which one. :) Then she told me she always thought that the creation -v- evolution debate was settled years ago, but much to her dismay there were those who still believed in the fantasy instead of the discovery. On a side note her favorite author is Dawkins, she always encourages her students to read everything they can by him.

[travc]

For the metaphysical "Truths" that religion provides/produces/makes up, I think it is critical to point out that the scientific process is not about producing Truth.

Evolution is a good example. (And yes, I have said this dozen of times elsewhere.) The theory of evolution provides a very concise and powerful way to account for observable data, as well as doing a damn fine job (not a failure yet) in accounting/predicting new data. So what if God really did create the universe in 6 literal days in such a way that it just appears completely consistent with the theory of evolution. Evolution is still really useful. Science is about producing predictive models of observable reality, not Truth.

A hard-core "active God" type may claim that science is not a good model of reality because of miracles or somesuch. But the clear refutation of that is the admitted inscrutability of God (that all the religions I know of adhere to.) If God is inscrutable (and therefore unpredictable) science is the best we can do.

Then you have the "why is a model of the world important if it is really wrong?" Which has the easy answer that all technology (as well as day to day living) is based inherently on scientific theories saying that if X and Y happen, then Z will happen.