Veritass' Religious Science Thread #2: Why Can't We Have Both God And Science?

[Veritass]

This is part 2 of 2 of my Religious Science threads. Part 1 of 2 is the “Ask a Religious Scientist” thread. This thread delves into the topic of why science and religion are at odds, when they can both fit together in a single understanding of the universe. Disclaimer: I am a Religious Scientist practitioner. We in Religious Science do not believe in proselytizing, and I am not trying to “convert” anyone. We respect all paths to higher understanding, including Internet discussion boards.

The opinions expressed here are mostly my own, and not the “official” positions of any Religious Science organization. They come mainly from my attempt to discern the common truths that might underlie different views of the world.

Overview

Science and religion are different, but they do not have to be incompatible with one another, because they are in different domains. This is not to say one is “better” than the other. A similar case can be made for science and art: science is not art, and art is not very scientific, yet we can have an experience of a piece of art, of aesthetic beauty, that transcends anything scientific about the piece. Music is mathematically quite beautiful, but nothing about mathematics will equip you to experience the complete joy that is Mozart.

I believe they just live in different parts of our brains. Science is never going to appeal to the religious and spiritual part of our brains, and religion is never going to appeal to the scientific part. We would be incomplete as human beings to only use either one of the parts.

Scientists do themselves and humanity a great disservice when they state that there is no God because there is no scientific evidence for God. Likewise, religious advocates create only “sound and fury, signifying nothing” when they try to claim scientific evidence for creationism. It’s time for both sides to just back off and quit pretending they are something they are not.

”How” versus “Why”

Science deals with the questions of how things work. Take something as ubiquitous as gravity: we all agree it does work; we make wonderful inverse-square models of how it works, etc. Science gives it rigor, and allows us to make predictions based on it. Voila! We discover Pluto based on perturbations in the orbit of Neptune.

Science continues to examine how it works. On a deeper level, gravity works because mass distorts space-time in its vicinity, causing other mass to tend toward the distortion. Wonderful insight, but it only expands on how gravity works.

None of this touches on why gravity works, or works the way it does. Why an inverse-square law? Why does mass distort space-time? Any level of scientific probing on this will only result in the answer, “We don’t know why; it just does.” And isn’t it wonderful that it works so well? It seems to work flawlessly from one end of the universe to the other. It also seems to be set at just the right balanced value: if gravity were significantly stronger or weaker than it is, this universe would be unrecognizable, and may not exist at all.

In The Beginning…

Scientific models based on a lot of observed evidence can take us back in time to what happened in the moments after the “Big Bang.” Nothing in science will ever answer the question of what caused the Big Bang, or what came before it. Nothing in religion will ever answer it more than as a simple metaphor to help it fit in our brains.

There are some questions that just don’t sit well in our brains. The universe is expanding, but into what? This whole concept can hurt the brain to try to figure out, just as the paradox of God existing “outside” the universe, or as I prefer to think of it, transcending the space-time that God created. How are we to have any real grasp of this, or try to explain in our limited understanding what it means to live outside of this space-time reality?

Evolution

I don’t really get how religious types have such a problem with biological evolution (yes, let’s not cloud the issue with stellar “evolution,” etc.). Yes, it is a “theory” of evolution in that it is a model for how speciation occurred, and not provable per se. Yes, there is a tremendous amount of corroborating evidence from all kinds of sciences that help to confirm that the universe is some billions of years old.

When religious types try to use junk science to try to support the claims of a literal interpretation of the Bible, they are just preying on the scientific ignorance of the population in general. They do a disservice to these people, they thwart real scientific progress, and they cheapen their own message. Let science have evolution. What part of evolution are you going to challenge? Genetic variation is easily provable, and natural selection is eminently logical. Let science have the model of evolution, and let God be the life force that put it all in motion.

I think one of the problems with people believing in evolution is that we just cannot get a grasp on what a billion years is. In our limited experiences, a hundred years seems like a long time, and the world has completely changed in a thousand years. How are we really to get a grip on what a million years is? A billion years? That really is a long time for a lot of genetic evolution and variation.

What Matters

The most specious argument of all is the one that says that the universe was created 4,000 years ago with everything in place to look like it is billions of years old. It might have been created one second ago with everything in place, including fake memories that you were born years ago. What would that matter? You would still have to live your life as if your perception was reality, and you are moving forward through time.

It’s like the argument that if God is omniscient, then there cannot be such a thing as free will. As I have argued several times, who are we in our limited intelligence to understand what it would be like to be omniscient? Moreover, even if free will is an illusion, I still choose to live my life like my choices matter. They do matter to me. So I choose to believe that the only time that I can actually experience now is now, that God is with me right now, that I am living in the best of all possible worlds, that people are basically good, that I am here for a reason, and that reason is to be an expression of God in this place and time.

I believe that you will choose to believe as you do, and that over time, the consciousness of each and every one of us will expand individually and collectively.

Vaya con Dios.

 

[Perfection]

Well as I see it, religion and science can coexist within a person's mind quite well and they can still function excellently.

However, I don't see the merits of adopting any religious worldview.

Your position that religion attempts to answer "why" questions is well and good, but I cannot see how your method of thinking will produce anything other then unmerited answers that you personally find attractive. Does the universe really need a reason to exist?

 

[Turner]

Does the universe really need a reason to exist?

Yes it does. People need an ordered universe. They need a reason behind action. It's not enough for most people to look at the world and see it for what it is. They have to create analogies.

 

[Perfection]

Yes it does. People need an ordered universe. They need a reason behind action. It's not enough for most people to look at the world and see it for what it is. They have to create analogies.

Doesn't that render religion a mere way of coping with a psychological defect?

 

[warpus]

Yes it does. People need an ordered universe. They need a reason behind action. It's not enough for most people to look at the world and see it for what it is. They have to create analogies.

Just because some people need the Universe to have meaning doesn't mean that it does.

As for the original question of the OP, I do think that we can both have God and science. Science is simply a tool we use to make sense of the Universe. If God exists he would surely want us to use the brains we were given at birth - he would want us to embrace Science.

 

[ArneHD]

From what I know, you have made an exellent description of Physics (how, not why), but other sciences (such as chemsitry) are more geared towards the fundamental why problem. I do not think that science will ever find the ultimate answer to everything, and even if it does, it won't be as simple as 42.

On another note, science has all the components of a religion in itself. A theory of creation, a theory of the current, and several theroies of how the universe will end.

 

[Turner]

Just because some people need the Universe to have meaning doesn't mean that it does.

I certainly didn't suggest otherwise.

Sure, it'd be nice. But it's not necessary.

Doesn't that render religion a mere way of coping with a psychological defect?

I don't know....does it?

 

[Perfection]

From what I know, you have made an exellent description of Physics (how, not why), but other sciences (such as chemsitry) are more geared towards the fundamental why problem.

In what manner?

On another note, science has all the components of a religion in itself. A theory of creation, a theory of the current, and several theroies of how the universe will end.

I disagree, first off the assertations about the beginning and end are debated and are never considered to be vital parts of the philosophical structure. This is unlike religions which tend to enforce thier view of creation dogmatically (however, they've loosened up recently and narrowed which componants they enfforce dogmatically). Also, science doesn't have a moral belief structure, nor assert the existance of non-empiricably viewable entities. Science is most definitely not a religion.

 

[Perfection]

I don't know....does it?

I would imagine that it does. And then armed with this knowledge how can one truely believe?

 

[Turner]

Aye, laddie. That's the rub, idn't it?

 

[SupremeC]

I was just thinking about this so please help me see if it is flawed.

Have you noticed that the physical world is made of 3 things, ie. protons, neutrons and electrons? And of course there is energy and waves and stuff but those are 3 key building blocks?

And all living things are programmed the same way, ie. with DNA and RNA to form proteins.

Doesn't all this seem like what we create stuff with? Like the 0s and 1s in binary? Simple building blocks for much bigger things?

If there was a God, wouldn't he have created stuff like we are using binary? It would seem impossible for AI to understand that we exist and therefore impossible for us to prove that God exists right?

The very fact that every living thing is programmed with DNA and RNA is quite a giveaway right? If there can be so many different types of organisms surely there could have been more than one way to program all these things.

 

[warpus]

On another note, science has all the components of a religion in itself. A theory of creation, a theory of the current, and several theroies of how the universe will end.

IMO phrasing it like you just did doesn't make too much sense. There are scientific theories that describe the origins as well as the end of the Universe, but science by itself is simply a framework we use to learn things about the Universe. It can't be a religion or have components of a religion - since it is just a framework and nothing more.

If a group of people took a couple scientific theories and started worshipping them, or the implications behind them, you'd have the beginnings of a religion right there. However, science by itself can't in any way be a religion, since it's only a methodology.

 

[warpus]

The very fact that every living thing is programmed with DNA and RNA is quite a giveaway right? If there can be so many different types of organisms surely there could have been more than one way to program all these things.

It's a giveaway that all the living things on this planet evolved from the same initial organism.

Life would've likely found a different solution (ie. not DNA) if it evolved independently from life on Earth. We haven't found any such life yet though, so we can't quite say what this 'different solution' would've been.

 

[ArneHD]

In what manner?


I disagree, first off the assertations about the beginning and end are debated and are never considered to be vital parts of the philosophical structure. This is unlike religions which tend to enforce thier view of creation dogmatically (however, they've loosened up recently and narrowed which componants they enfforce dogmatically). Also, science doesn't have a moral belief structure, nor assert the existance of non-empiricably viewable entities. Science is most definitely not a religion.

Physics, as I am learning it, tends to say "That is how it is, don't ask us why". Chemistry, again as I am learning it, tends to say "Hm... carbon appeares to have more valance electron shelles than it should have according to the standard theory, we will have to make another theory."

Oh, and I agree that science is not a religion, but it has many of the elements of a religion, i may have worded my self slightly errously (is this even a word?).

 

[Masquerouge]

I was just thinking about this so please help me see if it is flawed.

Have you noticed that the physical world is made of 3 things, ie. protons, neutrons and electrons? And of course there is energy and waves and stuff but those are 3 key building blocks?

No. You're forgetting everything quantic, for instance.

And all living things are programmed the same way, ie. with DNA and RNA to form proteins.
...
The very fact that every living thing is programmed with DNA and RNA is quite a giveaway right? If there can be so many different types of organisms surely there could have been more than one way to program all these things.

Mmmh. We know that ON EARTH most, if not all, of the lifeforms are DNA-based. But nobody can be sure of what's out there in the universe...

 

[Veritass]

However, I don't see the merits of adopting any religious worldview.

I quite agree. You should not adopt any world view. You should seek to create your own world view, and continually refine it as you broaden your experiences.

 

[ArneHD]

<snip>

Well, one reason for the abundance of D/RNA may be that organisms that used or adopted DNA were wastly more successful and reproduced much more quicly than other species. Or it may be that D/RNA came before acctual life, in the form of chaines of atoms that could extend themselves, and then snip of.

 

[SupremeC]

Hmm alright. I'm no physicist, so I can't really talk about building blocks of the universe.

Biologically speaking what you said is a very credible explanation, but until we find other forms of life, we can only work on what we have. I just wish SETI would get us some answers soon.

I think science is very important for us to find out what is going on and our scientists still cannot solve this for us yet. I hope they can do that soon.

On a related note, I see the Team CFC thing in the forums, but I'm using BOINC by Berkeley, trying to help SETI with their search. Is there a similar project for that on the CFC boards?

 

[Veritass]

I think the difference between science and most religions is the "surety" with which they make their claims. Science is very good about calling something a theory when it is a theory, and of specifying the conditions in which the theory is applicable. Einsteinian physics did not replace Newtonian physics; it supplemented it for different conditions, such as the very small or the very fast.

If religions were to advance their claims not as "The Truth" but as a framework for understanding, or a model that works for them, science and religion could coexist much more peacefully. In general, I think the eastern religions are better at this. The western religions seem to try to tell you what to think, whereas the eastern religions try to teach you how to think on these things.

 

[betazed]

”How” versus “Why”

Science deals with the questions of how things work. Take something as ubiquitous as gravity: we all agree it does work; we make wonderful inverse-square models of how it works, etc. Science gives it rigor, and allows us to make predictions based on it. Voila! We discover Pluto based on perturbations in the orbit of Neptune.

Science continues to examine how it works. On a deeper level, gravity works because mass distorts space-time in its vicinity, causing other mass to tend toward the distortion. Wonderful insight, but it only expands on how gravity works.

None of this touches on why gravity works, or works the way it does. Why an inverse-square law? Why does mass distort space-time? Any level of scientific probing on this will only result in the answer, “We don’t know why; it just does.” And isn’t it wonderful that it works so well? It seems to work flawlessly from one end of the universe to the other. It also seems to be set at just the right balanced value: if gravity were significantly stronger or weaker than it is, this universe would be unrecognizable, and may not exist at all.

Hmmm... This is a lack of understanding of science in general (and even lesser understanding of gravity in special). I see this popping up from time to time - saying that science does not explain why - so let me elaborate.

The ultimate goal of science is to answer "why"s.

In fact as our knowledge increases the how's just get absorbed into the why's. For example, we know specifically why gravity is an inverse square law (it is only an inverse law approximately) and why mass distorts space-time (or rather we have competing theories on the last one).

Taken any phenomenon, we can keep asking whys and science will keep giving answers till it reaches our frontiers of knowledge where we cannot answer anymore. However that is not a limitation of science. It is just that that is our current frontier. Come back a few years later and the frontier has expanded and the why has been answered and a newer and fewer why’s are in place.

Taking the example of gravity again...

Think back to the 16th century. There were so many why questions. Why do the planets move as they do? Why does a ball fall down an incline as it does? Why does a top spin the way it does? Newton answered all of these why questions by stating his three laws of motion and his law of gravitation. But we may as well ask why are these four laws valid (which IMO is also a very good question and for which we do know the answer now). So what he really did was reduce a whole bunch of disparate why questions to just four why questions ? Today we have reduced those four why's to just one why!

Take any other branch of science and we have done the same.

@Veritass: My fundamental question would be why do we need the co-existence at all? Why not get rid of religion and depend entirely on science because I do not see religion answering any question that science cannot.