# "Reconciling" Science and Relgion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2009, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134 "2009-11-19T07:02:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/61 "2009-11-20T20:05:33Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > I did not claim that morality requires religion. I proposed that religion could be considered an human abstraction of morality. Absolute morality specifically, deriving a interpreted divine source. In other words, not morality at all.“I was just following orders” is a rejection of moral responsibility, not being moral and that’s what you are describing. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Okay then, show me the evidence for the above claim. Simple logic? If there’s no evidence for what you say, what makes you think that your claim is any righter than any other wild claim? > [@Pleonast](#): > > Nice switcheroo there. I said the value of evidence (and science) is subjective. You’ve given an example about the value of a specific non-scientific belief. I don’t think anyone here has trouble distinguishing the two. And in any case, no one is claiming that all statements (scientific or not) are equally valuable. Picking one example doesn’t show anything. It demonstrates that your claim is garbage. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Are you sure those are scientific statements? Or even testable? Terms like “fool” and “character flaw” sure look problematic, are there non-subjective definitions of those? Did I say they were “scientific”? I was just pointing out the obvious. I expect the more scientific versions would be “poor judgement” and some psychological jargon that says “fool” with greater specificity and more syllables. > [@Pleonast](#): > > The standard is whether or not a statement is testable. I certainly apply it to any statement I evaluate. Yeah, right. You are just doing what many defenders of religion do; demanding that religion be treated in a privileged fashion. People, including scientists and believers flatly say that things that have no evidence for their existence don’t exist all the time. They don’t normally feel obliged to include weasel words like you are demanding people do about religion. > [@Pleonast](#): > > More of your own subjective opinions. You’d do a lot better arguing against subjective belief systems if you didn’t simply assert your own subjective belief system. And in what way is that subjective? That’s just pointing out the obvious. Expecting people motivated by and acting according to the rules of a fantasy to be very good at behaving morally would be irrational. ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/62 "2009-11-20T20:21:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > In other words, not morality at all.“I was just following orders” is a rejection of moral responsibility, not being moral and that’s what you are describing. Absolute moralism is not amoralism. You are describing your own personal moral relativism, which is of no interest to me or revelant to this debate. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/63 "2009-11-20T20:24:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Of course, it helps if one can use the important-sounding jargon of science in one’s religion, thus new-age pseudo-cults that talk about molecules and crystal vibrations and quantum fluctuations and all variety of bushwah painful to the ears of anyone who took and passed a physics course in their lifetime. That’s right there is no[such thing as Qi](http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24425/?a=f). ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/64 "2009-11-20T20:33:38Z")
Science is concerned with truth. Religion is concerned with lies. Not sure if they can be reconciled. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/65 "2009-11-20T20:38:53Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That’s right there is no[such thing as Qi](http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24425/?a=f). What a perfect example of his point. Even if this research pans out, cells communicate with each other through chemical means already. It would be fascinating if they did it through photons also, but that would be a long way from Qi. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/66 "2009-11-20T20:59:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > **What a perfect example of his point.** Even if this research pans out, cells communicate with each other through chemical means already. It would be fascinating if they did it through photons also, but that would be a long way from Qi. Why, thank you for noticing. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/67 "2009-11-20T21:00:17Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Science is concerned with truth. Religion is concerned with lies. Not sure if they can be reconciled. Well aren’t you the brilliant radical thinker. I bet you had a cognitive bias once, just to see what it felt like. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/68 "2009-11-20T21:11:50Z")
I suggest that religion is concerned with pleasant-sounding lies, as a refinement of Clothahump’s observation. I don’t know offhand of a religion whose tenets suggest that the universe is completely indifferent to humanity and existence is random. I’m guessing the concept doesn’t sell very well. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/69 "2009-11-20T21:19:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I suggest that religion is concerned with pleasant-sounding lies, as a refinement of Clothahump’s observation. I don’t know offhand of a religion whose tenets suggest that the universe is completely indifferent to humanity and existence is random. I’m guessing the concept doesn’t sell very well. Well, Paganisms did that. I think Buddhism and Taoism are sort of like that. Pantheism is certainly that. But the universe is not indifferent to me, I am impactful upon it, in direct proportion to how impactful I am upon it. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/70 "2009-11-20T21:23:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Perhaps I was overestimating the intelligence of the average believer. If a preacher says that we must shun gays, and the adherent asks why, is “faith” an adequate answer? If the preacher points to some supposedly inspired book, is it wrong to ask for evidence that the book came from a deity? Especially if it gives all sorts of wrong information? It’s rational to ask for evidence and it’s rational to ask whether faith is adequate. And if information is wrong, then it’s wrong. But I’m not claiming religion is rational; I’m saying it can only make untestable claims. Claims that by definition cannot be proven to be wrong (although they could be false–we just can’t prove it). > [@](#): > > But the faith it is based on seems not to be just in addition to evidence, but actively opposed to evidence. God in the Bible provided plenty of evidence. Couldn’t the resurrection be considered evidence? If they found Jesus’ body in the tomb, do you think they’d be right in keeping on believing by faith alone? Whether or not the Bible makes testable claims is a matter of interpretation. I do not think that it does. If someone uses a different interpretation that provides testable claims, then they are subject to being tested. > [@](#): > > If someone tells you a pill will do all sorts of wonderful things, do you believe on faith or do you look for clinical studies? Why should such an important thing as the meaning of life require any less? Really, in your normal life isn’t the fact that someone tells you to trust him while not providing any evidence (the kind that should be available) the sign of a con man? Why is religion any different? If you can provide evidence about the meaning of life, I’m all ears. So far I have not seen any scientific claims about the meaning of life. > [@](#): > > Like who? Even Dawkins said that it is very likely that there is no God, using standard scientific weasel words. I think most scientists have gotten absolute statements beaten out of them in grad school - I know I did. Professional scientists probably never make untestable claims. The review process weeds those out very quickly. But people who claim to be scientific make untestable claims. (See below.) > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Simple logic? If there’s no evidence for what you say, what makes you think that your claim is any righter than any other wild claim? Lack of evidence for another’s claim (which is unremarkable considering that faith-based beliefs specifically claim to have no evidence) does not provide support for your statement. Where is your evidence for “you should only pay attention to claims with evidence”? > [@](#): > > It demonstrates that your claim is garbage. That statement is an opinion. You’d think someone disparaging subjective belief systems would use fewer subjective opinions to support their arguments > [@](#): > > Did I say they were “scientific”? I was just pointing out the obvious. I expect the more scientific versions would be “poor judgement” and some psychological jargon that says “fool” with greater specificity and more syllables. You’re the one who says we should only pay attention to statements with evidence. Be consistent with your own standards. > [@](#): > > Yeah, right. You are just doing what many defenders of religion do; demanding that religion be treated in a privileged fashion. People, including scientists and believers flatly say that things that have no evidence for their existence don’t exist all the time. They don’t normally feel obliged to include weasel words like you are demanding people do about religion. I’m not sure why you think I give religion special treatment (are you confusing me with someone else)? Science can only make testable claims. Religion cannot. Take any statement and it’s either testable or not. If it’s testable, science can determine our best estimate as to whether it’s true or not. If it’s not testable, then science cannot determine if it’s truth or not. Any assertion that an untestable claim is true or false cannot be anything more than opinion. I’m not holding religion to a special standard, I’m holding science to one. Untestable claims are easy; science does the hard thing and makes only testable claims. And then provides evidence to support or not the claims. Anyone who claims to be solely scientific has to be held to that standard. Those making untestable can believe whatever they–it can’t be proven or disproven either way. > [@](#): > > And in what way is that subjective? That’s just pointing out the obvious. Expecting people motivated by and acting according to the rules of a fantasy to be very good at behaving morally would be irrational. It’s subjective because you use terms like “good moral code”. What’s good or not is subjective. > [@Clothahump](#): > > Religion is concerned with lies. Untestable claims cannot be falsified. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/71 "2009-11-20T21:27:38Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > But the universe is not indifferent to me, I am impactful upon it, in direct proportion to how impactful I am upon it. Well, perhaps in the sense that if you stand under a falling piano, the piano will squish you, but not in any sense that the piano was _trying_ to get you or that it was your turn to be squished. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/72 "2009-11-20T21:33:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, perhaps in the sense that if you stand under a falling piano, the piano will squish you, but not in any sense that the piano was _trying_ to get you or that it was your turn to be squished. But I have the ability to move away from the piano so it doesn’t squish me, or my preferred method of not walking under suspended pianos. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/73 "2009-11-20T21:46:58Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > Absolute moralism is not amoralism. You are describing your own personal moral relativism, which is of no interest to me or revelant to this debate. Nonsense. “Absolute” morality is just as relative as any other if not more so. It’s just another moral code, in this case a generally inferior one supposedly dictated by a fictional being. Who can therefore be conveniently interpreted any way you like; its not like there’s any chance God will actually show up and disagree. Whether it’s amoral in the sense of making it up as you please or in the sense of mindlessly obeying orders depends on whether you are the person who dictates the supposed will of God, or the one who mindlessly obeys it. And then there’s the question of which supposed “absolute morality” you are following. And how to choose between them. And if “absolute morality” tells you to, say, kill your children will you? Or will you decide to ignore “absolute morality” and let your children live? Bottom line; there’s no reason to think there is any such thing as absolute morality, no way to know what it is if it exists, and no reason to think following it is a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/74 "2009-11-20T21:48:15Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > But I have the ability to move away from the piano so it doesn’t squish me, or my preferred method of not walking under suspended pianos. If the universe was interested in you in any sense, there’d be a open manhole in the path around the falling piano. Or a pile of a million dollars. In any case, not just something by chance, but something that showed love or dislike toward you. Its this concept (and conceit) that the universe thinks you important that makes religion so appealing. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/75 "2009-11-20T21:58:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If the universe was interested in you in any sense, there’d be a open manhole in the path around the falling piano. Or a pile of a million dollars. In any case, not just something by chance, but something that showed love or dislike toward you. Its this concept (and conceit) that the universe thinks you important that makes religion so appealing. Well as part of the universe’s intellectual caste, I care about me, and I have a modicum of control, or at least influence upon a particular configuration of complex molecules that make up a homo sapien chassy, male, about 32 years old. I haven’t performed the kind of maintenance I should, but it’s in pretty good condition overall. Now, if I did some maintenance and fixed it up, I could easily increase the efficiency of my ability move matter external to my primary chassis. This is accomplishable, and I know how to do it, I just need to get over the inertia (laziness) and do it. Now, from there my ability to reconfigure matter is limited directly by my ability to convince other people to do what I want them to. But if I can get them to do what I want them to do, I am still subject to their external structural insignifancies, and I must work around them, but these are merely engineering problems. In otherwords, part of my zone of influence, is a portion of the universe’s opinion of itself. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/76 "2009-11-20T22:01:54Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Lack of evidence for another’s claim (which is unremarkable considering that faith-based beliefs specifically claim to have no evidence) does not provide support for your statement. Where is your evidence for “you should only pay attention to claims with evidence”? Again, simple logic. If you have no evidence for a claim, given the pretty much infinite number of equally evidence-free claims that contradict yours what are the odds that you are the fellow who guessed right? > [@Pleonast](#): > > That statement is an opinion. You’d think someone disparaging subjective belief systems would use fewer subjective opinions to support their arguments Except it’s not a subjective argument. There’s a real world out there that doesn’t care about your silly insistence that evidence doesn’t matter, and will squash you if you are foolish enough to actually follow the worldview you claim to have. > [@Pleonast](#): > > I’m not sure why you think I give religion special treatment (are you confusing me with someone else)? Don’t deliberately ignore what I am saying. You are repeatedly insisting that people treat religion in a special way. You are insisting that people give it a pass on evidnece, and that they use weasel words to avoid admitting that there’s no reason to believe in it. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Science can only make testable claims. Religion cannot. Take any statement and it’s either testable or not. If it’s testable, science can determine our best estimate as to whether it’s true or not. If it’s not testable, then science cannot determine if it’s truth or not. Any assertion that an untestable claim is true or false cannot be anything more than opinion. Wrong. First, because religion has a track record. When it HAS made testable claims, it’s been wrong over and over again. There’s no reason to think it gets better with untestable claims. And religions wildly contradict each other; it is logically impossible for most religious beliefs to be correct; that is also not opinion. And as well; the logical default is non-belief; if there’s no evidence for a god, the logical default stance is disbelief. Just as the logical default for invisible goblins is to disbelieve in them. > [@Pleonast](#): > > It’s subjective because you use terms like “good moral code”. What’s good or not is subjective. Irrelevant. It couldn’t hold consistently to a bad moral code either. Religion fails at morality because it is intrinsically incompetent. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/77 "2009-11-20T22:13:19Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Whether or not the Bible makes testable claims is a matter of interpretation. I do not think that it does. If someone uses a different interpretation that provides testable claims, then they are subject to being tested. There are testable claims in the plain text of the bible - specifically, the bible claims things occured in ways that can be independently investigated. If you feel that the plain text does not define the contents of the bible, I would say that the bible has no meaningful content at all. If parts of the plain text of the bible can be eradicated through cherry-picking, then _nothing_ is sacred. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/78 "2009-11-20T22:22:13Z")
Oh sacred nothing. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/79 "2009-11-20T22:26:29Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Oh sacred nothing. Given that nothing is sacred, and we should worship sacred things, I vote that we should all come together in worshipping it. I could get down with worshipping nothing. On the other hand, nobody is a real jerk, as has been amply proven in the Family Circus comics. ETA: :smack: “Not Me”, not “nobody”. Oh well, it _would_ have been funny… ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/80 "2009-11-20T22:32:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Again, simple logic. If you have no evidence for a claim, given the pretty much infinite number of equally evidence-free claims that contradict yours what are the odds that you are the fellow who guessed right? You’re the pot calling the kettle black. We both agree that any religious claims I make have no evidence to support them. You still haven’t provided evidence for your own claims (e.g., “you should only pay attention to claims with evidence”, “a good moral code rejects or ignores the fantasies of religion”). Why should anyone be convinced by your argument when you do not meet your own standard? > [@](#): > > Except it’s not a subjective argument. There’s a real world out there that doesn’t care about your silly insistence that evidence doesn’t matter, and will squash you if you are foolish enough to actually follow the worldview you claim to have. More evidence that you are arguing against someone other than me. I haven’t said that evidence doesn’t matter, I said that it’s value is subjective. > [@](#): > > Don’t deliberately ignore what I am saying. You are repeatedly insisting that people treat religion in a special way. You are insisting that people give it a pass on evidnece, and that they use weasel words to avoid admitting that there’s no reason to believe in it. Um, so you want to try to find evidence for (or against) untestable claims? Claims, that by definition cannot be proven (or disproven). At least I know my worldview is irrational–you’re in denial. > [@](#): > > First, because religion has a track record. When it HAS made testable claims, it’s been wrong over and over again. There’s no reason to think it gets better with untestable claims. And religions wildly contradict each other; it is logically impossible for most religious beliefs to be correct; that is also not opinion. And as well; the logical default is non-belief; if there’s no evidence for a god, the logical default stance is disbelief. Just as the logical default for invisible goblins is to disbelieve in them. Who are you arguing against??? I agree with everything in the above quote. I’m not claiming religion is rational or logical–what do you think “faith” and “untestable claim” mean? > [@](#): > > Religion fails at morality because it is intrinsically incompetent. And you are still making statements that are your own subjective opinion. If you want to use the standards of science when evaluating beliefs, you weaken your position when you don’t apply it to your own beliefs. > [@begbert2](#): > > If you feel that the plain text does not define the contents of the bible, I would say that the bible has no meaningful content at all. If parts of the plain text of the bible can be eradicated through cherry-picking, then _nothing_ is sacred. There are more ways to interpret text than “literal” and “cherry-picking”. And the non-religious don’t get a say in the matter of what’s sacred or not. In other words, “X is sacred” is an untestable statement, so saying it is true or not is a religious statement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134.md?page=5)