Science and Religion, Again [EvolutionBlog]

In a post from 2012, I wrote the following as part of a discussion about reconciling science and religion:

Too often the defender of reconciliation acts as though his job is done as soon as he has tossed off a logically possible scenario that includes both God and evolution.

This was specifically in response to an interview with philosopher Elliott Sober, in which he breathlessly reported his finding that science could not absolutely rule out the possibility that God was guiding the mutations in the course of evolution. Adorably, he seemed to think this represented a genuine contribution toward reconciling science and religion. My point in reply was that bare logical possibility was not the issue. A successful reconciliation requires plausibility as well, and neither theistic evolutionists, nor the atheist philosophers who sometimes wade in, have had much success in that regard.

I have expressed similar sentiments many times at this blog, but I have always assumed that the targets of my criticism would object to my characterization. Perhaps I was wrong, since we now have Massimo Pigliucci explicitly writing this:

Here is a second highly indicative quote from Blackford: “Coyne makes clear that he is not talking about a strict logical inconsistency. Rather, incompatibility arises from the radically different methods used by science and religion to seek knowledge and assess truth claims.”

Ah, so it turns out that science and religion are, in fact, logically compatible (not sure why the clause “strict” is necessary here, something either is or is not logically consistent with something else). I could declare victory and graciously leave the room at this point, but I’m not done yet.

The context is that Massimo is replying to a review by Russell Blackford of Jerry Coyne’s book Faith Versus Fact.

I was taken aback by this. He not only thinks he can declare victory at this point, but he’s even snide about it. But Massimo, I think, is just being silly. Who, exactly, does he think he is declaring victory over? Who has ever claimed that there is a logical contradiction between religion in general and science? The only ones I can think of who might have endorsed such a claim are philosophers (like J. L. Mackie) who have defended the logical form of the argument from evil. Is that who Massimo has in mind? Russell and Jerry obviously didn’t think they were making a concession here, so why is Massimo pretending otherwise?

Massimo’s essay is quite long. It is a mix of reasonable points and weak points, but ultimately I think there’s a bad error underlying many of his claims. He frequently writes as though there is a clean distinction between the factual assertions made by a religion and the religion’s teachings about morality and values. This is wrong, but I will save discussion of that point for a separate post.

Instead, let me make my own views clear.

The question, “Are science and religion compatible?” is ill-posed. “Religion” (even if you limit it just to Christianity) means so many different things to different people that it is pointless to generalize. “Compatible” is also incredibly vague, as this little spat between Massimo and Russell shows. What Russell takes as an obvious and trivial assertion Massimo takes as an admission of defeat. Plainly, people are talking past each other.

If we use a more modest definition, and take compatibility to mean that a perfectly rational and well-informed person could simultaneously accept both science and even a robust, evangelical sort of Christianity, then I think science and religion are compatible. I would point to someone like Keith Miller, who has written eloquently on this. I entirely disagree with everything he believes, but I don’t think he’s being irrational or worse.

But there’s a catch. I do think it’s mighty difficult to reconcile science with certain very commonly held religious beliefs, so much so that I think the critics of theistic evolution have by far the better end of the argument. There’s always enough vagueness in religious assertions, and enough limitations on what we can know, that I think a theistic evolutionist can avoid charges of outright irrationality. But the fact remains that the world as revealed by science sure looks different from the world as traditionally described by Christianity. Put as succinctly as possible, science claims that human beings are an accidental by-product of millions of years of vicious evolutionary bloodsport. Christianity claims that we are created in the image of God by an omnipotent being of perfect goodness. It is logically possible that those are two sides of the same coin, but they are not obviously so.

There’s an entire industry devoted to defending theistic evolution. There’s a reason that so many scholars must write at book length just to defend the bare possibility that evolution and Christianity can both be true. These defenses, which amount to little more than armchair philosophizing, are typically based on assertions that are far more implausible than anything the creationists are saying.

I have elaborated on these points elsewhere so I won’t belabor them here. The bottom line is that talk of logical compatibility is just an asinine distraction. Religion as it is actually practiced (as opposed to the ivory tower version often discussed by philosophers and theologians) is typically based on factual assertions that are strongly challenged by science. An acceptable reconciliation requires not just a possible way of defusing the challenge, but a plausible way as well. Such a reconciliation is very hard to come by, and requires harder work than Massimo seems willing to provide.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1nzIB1p

In a post from 2012, I wrote the following as part of a discussion about reconciling science and religion:

Too often the defender of reconciliation acts as though his job is done as soon as he has tossed off a logically possible scenario that includes both God and evolution.

This was specifically in response to an interview with philosopher Elliott Sober, in which he breathlessly reported his finding that science could not absolutely rule out the possibility that God was guiding the mutations in the course of evolution. Adorably, he seemed to think this represented a genuine contribution toward reconciling science and religion. My point in reply was that bare logical possibility was not the issue. A successful reconciliation requires plausibility as well, and neither theistic evolutionists, nor the atheist philosophers who sometimes wade in, have had much success in that regard.

I have expressed similar sentiments many times at this blog, but I have always assumed that the targets of my criticism would object to my characterization. Perhaps I was wrong, since we now have Massimo Pigliucci explicitly writing this:

Here is a second highly indicative quote from Blackford: “Coyne makes clear that he is not talking about a strict logical inconsistency. Rather, incompatibility arises from the radically different methods used by science and religion to seek knowledge and assess truth claims.”

Ah, so it turns out that science and religion are, in fact, logically compatible (not sure why the clause “strict” is necessary here, something either is or is not logically consistent with something else). I could declare victory and graciously leave the room at this point, but I’m not done yet.

The context is that Massimo is replying to a review by Russell Blackford of Jerry Coyne’s book Faith Versus Fact.

I was taken aback by this. He not only thinks he can declare victory at this point, but he’s even snide about it. But Massimo, I think, is just being silly. Who, exactly, does he think he is declaring victory over? Who has ever claimed that there is a logical contradiction between religion in general and science? The only ones I can think of who might have endorsed such a claim are philosophers (like J. L. Mackie) who have defended the logical form of the argument from evil. Is that who Massimo has in mind? Russell and Jerry obviously didn’t think they were making a concession here, so why is Massimo pretending otherwise?

Massimo’s essay is quite long. It is a mix of reasonable points and weak points, but ultimately I think there’s a bad error underlying many of his claims. He frequently writes as though there is a clean distinction between the factual assertions made by a religion and the religion’s teachings about morality and values. This is wrong, but I will save discussion of that point for a separate post.

Instead, let me make my own views clear.

The question, “Are science and religion compatible?” is ill-posed. “Religion” (even if you limit it just to Christianity) means so many different things to different people that it is pointless to generalize. “Compatible” is also incredibly vague, as this little spat between Massimo and Russell shows. What Russell takes as an obvious and trivial assertion Massimo takes as an admission of defeat. Plainly, people are talking past each other.

If we use a more modest definition, and take compatibility to mean that a perfectly rational and well-informed person could simultaneously accept both science and even a robust, evangelical sort of Christianity, then I think science and religion are compatible. I would point to someone like Keith Miller, who has written eloquently on this. I entirely disagree with everything he believes, but I don’t think he’s being irrational or worse.

But there’s a catch. I do think it’s mighty difficult to reconcile science with certain very commonly held religious beliefs, so much so that I think the critics of theistic evolution have by far the better end of the argument. There’s always enough vagueness in religious assertions, and enough limitations on what we can know, that I think a theistic evolutionist can avoid charges of outright irrationality. But the fact remains that the world as revealed by science sure looks different from the world as traditionally described by Christianity. Put as succinctly as possible, science claims that human beings are an accidental by-product of millions of years of vicious evolutionary bloodsport. Christianity claims that we are created in the image of God by an omnipotent being of perfect goodness. It is logically possible that those are two sides of the same coin, but they are not obviously so.

There’s an entire industry devoted to defending theistic evolution. There’s a reason that so many scholars must write at book length just to defend the bare possibility that evolution and Christianity can both be true. These defenses, which amount to little more than armchair philosophizing, are typically based on assertions that are far more implausible than anything the creationists are saying.

I have elaborated on these points elsewhere so I won’t belabor them here. The bottom line is that talk of logical compatibility is just an asinine distraction. Religion as it is actually practiced (as opposed to the ivory tower version often discussed by philosophers and theologians) is typically based on factual assertions that are strongly challenged by science. An acceptable reconciliation requires not just a possible way of defusing the challenge, but a plausible way as well. Such a reconciliation is very hard to come by, and requires harder work than Massimo seems willing to provide.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1nzIB1p