I completely agree. To the extent that what you say is true about Meyers and Dawkins (like I said, don’t know their positions well) inability to distinguish between the two I am also in complete agreement; I don’t see how any reasonable person could not be.

For the record, I don’t think Dawkins considers himself, or is considered to be, a great biologist. I think he’s considered to be a great writer of science. There are few such people, and I think that ability (to make otherwise dry and inscrutable scientific concepts accessible and interesting to non-professionals like myself) is how he has garnered a podium from which to speak.

MM and Charlie — I don’t want to get too high on this or anything, but it appears that we have much more common ground on this topic than first appeared. I sometimes wonder how odd it is that, coming from two contrary perspectives, we not only find ourselves in basic agreement but, I imagine, even more so than with many of those whom we share more fundamental perspectives. 

As always, I appreciate your involvement on this topic and taking the time to explain to me what you know.

Maybe not to your religious beliefs, Tom, but Cosmology, Astronomy, Linguistics, and I’m sure a bunch more I can’t think of are corrosive to the religious beliefs of fundamentalists.

In this, you are absolutely right – though I’d change “corrosive to the religious…” into “corrosive to some of the religious beliefs of some fundamentalists”. I know critics think it’s a dodge to mention that not all religious believers are in doctrinal lockstep, but it’s a fact nonetheless. As we were saying before, good science tells us many truthful things about the real world. Not all religious beliefs are equally valid, equally true, or equally supported by nature. There is nothing surprising about this to me, or to other Christian Rationalists. I see Galileo’s position as a perfect summary of this position:

“In religion Galileo considered himself a good Roman Catholic, to whom “the Holy Scriptures cannot err” whenever their true meaning is understood. But he maintained that the Bible cannot and should not always be interpreted literally, and he asserted that when Scripture seems to contradict the conclusions reached by scientific investigation of the universe, “it becomes the office of wise expounders to labor till they find how to make those passages of Holy Writ concordant with these conclusions.” -Douglas, Comfort & Mitchell

In other words, I believe that God is not a “trickster”, who makes things appear to be totally different than they are to fool or deceive us. I say all this only to emphasize that, while science is most certainly “corrosive” to some religious beliefs, it is not inherently corrosive to all religious beliefs. The overt evidence of a non-eternal universe was a crushing blow to atheism, but it also upsets the apple carts of Hinduism and Buddhism.
There are some who choose not to pursue certain fields because they don’t want their convictions challenged. I don’t want to throw anyone under the bus, but it’s safe to say that there are plenty of worldview-related reasons why a certain person might not pursue certain fields. I actually would consider this a serious problem! It’s problematic when an important field is dominated by a worldview that isn’t necessary, and which chokes out other views. I’m as concerned about religion being used as a pandering tool by elected officials as I am science being used as an anti-religion tool by talking heads.
Dawkins and his clan come awfully close to calling for exactly that kind of “litmus” test. When you don’t just equate child molestation and religious upbringing, but actually say that religion is worse, you’re drawing a pretty clear line in the sand. When Dawkins remarks at his puzzlement that John Polkinghorne is both a good scientist, and yet religious, he’s making a clear implication.
The ID debate is a great example. ID proponents who are actual scientists generally agree with the consensus about the age of the universe, the basics of evolution, and so forth. They simply don’t agree with all of the anti-theistic assumptions that those facts are interpreted through. The result? They’re being labeled as hacks, junk scientists, and frauds.
Your example about Lister is relevant, but it’s actually not quite what I’m talking about. My problem is with those who extend their atheistic assumptions into some kind of requirement (which we’ve pretty well established is counterproductive). There is a difference between religious convictions that actually undermine one’s science and convictions that do not. Dawkins, Meyers, et al, do not distinguish between the two.
If the student in your example accepted everything about sterilization, but then added, “I think God wants me to keep a clean surgical environment out of respect for the patient, who is created in His image. I also think that the whole reason germs exist is because of the fallen nature of this universe. Let’s scrub up and get to it!” Dawkins would cast doubt on whether or not he’s really science-minded. If a young biologist accepts all of the facts (not extrapolations) about sterilization (or evolution), why should he be laughed at for suggesting a different interpretation? So, when you say…

is it unreasonable to ask a student who wishes to study, say, Molecular Biology, to express an open-minded willingness to accept the tenets of Evolution in the practice of that science?

…my response is: not at all. In counterpoint, I’d say it’s not unreasonable for scientists to express an open-minded willingness to accept that their assumptions, and interpretations, may be wrong. That ages-old resistance to paradigm change in science is becoming very metaphysically-charged in areas like biology, to the detriment of science.
Dawkins is ostensibly a biologist – but even his books on biology are really anti-religious arguments using lots of biological arguments. Let’s face it, he’s not being hailed for making major strides in our understanding of biology, he’s getting headlines for being a professional atheist. The title of “The Blind Watchmaker” is in response to Paley’s analogy that finding a watch in an empty field would immediately invoke assumptions about a designer. Dawkins is really just trying to make the argument that biology shows more evidence of non-design than design. There’s some biology in there, but it’s foundationally a book about metaphysics.
I don’t worry about him keeping his opinions private – that’s exactly what atheistic secularism wants. That turns into freedom “from” religion, not freedom “of” religion, and that’s no different that socially-enforced atheism. Let him talk. Sooner or later, he’s going to talk himself into a hole that he won’t be able to dig out of.
If Dawkins had spent less time lambasting religion and more time focusing on science, I’d agree that he’s been good for the field. Plenty of atheists have been. But the vitriol – let’s call it for what it really is, bigotry – towards religion has taken focus off of what science really is and really does, and created a divide that isn’t doing any researcher any favors.
Technically, atheism isn’t a form of “religion”, when you define “religion” as an ordered system of tenets and dogmas. But it’s not the nebulous, “just a lack of belief” that is preached so often. Everyone has a worldview – everyone! Atheists have beliefs, because everyone must have beliefs. Saying otherwise is like saying, “I have no opinion about anything, and I don’t differentiate between any ideas at all. I do not and cannot know anything at all.” Atheists have un-provable assumptions, presumptions, prejudices, and preferences just like anyone else.
As a side note, some commentators are beginning to notice how New Atheism is becoming more and more like a traditional “religion”. They have meetings of like-minded people, they have dogmas that divide “our side” from “their side”, they’re accumulating “sacred texts”, and so forth. They even have Sunday school…
Point is, anti-religion is not uniquely different from religion, when you get down to brass tacks. It’s not a question of how ordered you system is, only that you have to have some system.

As I said in response to your worry that belief in monotheism caused resistance to explanations:
<blockquote>It is a man of pure straw being fought to claim that a belief in monotheism introduces any unique degree of lost productivity or resistance to explanation – humanity does that just fine on its own.</blockquote>

So it appears we agree?

Cosmology is most decidedly not corrosive to religious beliefs, Tony.

Maybe not to your religious beliefs, Tom, but Cosmology, Astronomy, Linguistics, and I’m sure a bunch more I can’t think of are corrosive to the religious beliefs of fundamentalists. Sorry to lump them in with you but monotheism is a big umbrella and, well, there they are. 
 
Tom, I do see your point that it’s disingenuous of me to blame those who hold religious beliefs for their not entering to study, say, Evolution. I meant it only in terms of self-selection; in other words, I was speaking of people who hold religious convictions and who opt out of study because they fear what study of Evolution or Astronomy might do to their (fundamentalist) convictions. I’m not blaming religious for this, per se; I’m stating it as a fact that religious preconceptions can result in talent diminution. Maybe this is not a serious problem, but it occurs to me that it could be.
 
I am not a student of Dawkins’ atheist comments, books, etc., but I don’t think that any serious participant in the discussion is suggesting a purge or even a litmus test for the sciences based on review of an individual’s religious convictions. (Charlie, you are right in that the historical record points to religious adherents also conducting good science; atheists in science can’t be unaware of that.)
 
Where I think a straw dog argument is being made is painting a picture where Dawkins and others like him are suggesting that religious beliefs are de facto incompatible with science; I think that the position is that there are some religious beliefs that are incompatible with some scientific study. The question should be then, is it unreasonable to ask a student who wishes to study, say, Molecular Biology, to express an open-minded willingness to accept the tenets of Evolution in the practice of that science? (Like I said, I’m not a student of Meyers, Dawkins, et al.’s atheist positions; if they hold positions stronger than this please enlighten me.)
 
Here’s an example (since you brought up Lister, MM): say you were the head of a leading edge surgical school. A talented surgeon applies, but this surgeon does not accept the practice of antiseptics (on religious principles) while performing his surgeries. Now, who is being disingenuous in the reasons for the talented surgeon not being accepted – the surgeon who claims he was excluded because of his religious beliefs, or the head of the school?
 
MedicineMan,
You wrote:

Dawkins is a great example. He’s never really been a biologist; read comments from his college companions, and they’ll say that his true talent is rhetoric. He’s written one book about biology, and about fifteen dozen on religion. If he’d just shut up about religion, he’d be considerably more productive in biology, and we might actually have more intelligent, rational people pursuing the field.

 
I read the Selfish Gene when I was in Middle School back the very late 1970’s. I read The Blind Watchmaker in the mid 1990’s. I am reading The Extended Phenotype now (it’s a tougher read). I can tell you that each of these books are about biology. Your next sentence makes it clear that you exaggerate for effect, but the following sentence implies that Dawkins has not been good for science. I care about science largely because of the man’s books, and it becomes clearer with each passing year that Dawkin’s books have had a lasting impact on intellectuals from a wide range of fields. I do wonder about the wisdom of his antagonistic atheist positions, and wish that he and others would keep their personal convictions more private. But I think that the man has clearly been a boon for science.
 
Two last things: I accept that scientists are people, and that people tend to resist ideas that would produce a revolution in the mind. Kuhn et al. have covered this well. So I do think that those who practice in a scientific field are, by definition, resistant to ideas that would produce Kuhn’s paradigm shifts. The fact that scientists resist paradigm shifts is as old as science itself, so pointing out that scientist opposed the Big Bang is not the same thing as pointing out that scientists opposed the Big Bang because they were anti-religious. (Most) Scientists always resist paradigm shifts. It’s happened in the past, and it will surely happen in the future.
 
And I want to mention: there’s an assumption here that I haven’t protested, that atheism is just another form of religion. I want to think about this some more, but I have to say that this presumption (conclusion?) doesn’t seem correct to me.
 
 

You can also use the Comments RSS for updates (Comments RSS).

Please note that the html blockquote tag doesn’t work in the comment window anymore. The quote icon does that job instead now. If you want to write in html, there’s an icon in the comments window that will take you to an html editing screen.

I’m glad that you’re taking (I think) a cautiously open-minded approach to this. If you’d been willing to just flip over on everything right away, I’d be questioning how seriously you understood either side. In my experience, the most productive conversations are those where one feels that they’ve been offered something worthwhile to digest.

I think the component of your argument that I still struggle with is your suggestion that a theist’s preconceptions are superior to an atheist’s when conducting science.

I might be able to relieve some of that by making a small correction:

a theist’s Theism’s preconceptions are superior to an atheist’sAtheism’s when conducting science.

There’s a subtle, but important difference there. Anyone can make the right presumptions, but those presumptions will have different levels of support from each individual’s worldview. This is like saying that both an American and a Saudi Arabian can make the same assumptions about the equality of women. This is very true, but one of them comes from a culture that makes those assumptions much harder to justify. A Saudi who thinks that women are equal to men is contradicting his culture to some extent. Theists (the persons) are no more or less capable of right assumptions than atheists (the people), but Theism (the worldview) is a much more fertile womb for modern science than Atheism (the worldview).

And, of course, once the system (modern science) is up and running, anyone can utilize it, since what used to be assumptions start to become self-verifying.

Chiefly, I don’t see why personal belief in monotheism is preferable to holding the same preconceptions – orderliness, progression, etc. – minus the personal belief.

I understand where you’re coming from; and, to a large extent, I actually agree with you. In a broad sense, science is spiritually neutral. It is specifically intended to focus on the natural, which limits its scope but evens out a lot of bumps. From the strictest possible view, it’s not superior in any way (once you’ve bought into the presumptions of order, and so forth). As long as you work within those boundaries, you’re fine.

Part of the problem that I’m seeing, Tom’s seeing, and so many others are talking about is this: personal beliefs are being inserted, by atheists. They’re attempting to squash any mention of God, any reference to belief, and any suggestion of deity in the population of scientists. Rather than simply sticking to evidence, hypothesis, and testing, they’re trying to suggest that those who don’t espouse an atheistic view are inherently incompetent for work in scientific fields.

If everyone had faith in God, and everyone gave Him due credit, I’d be ecstatic. Since I know that can’t and won’t happen, the best I can really ask for is that people don’t impose an orthodoxy of opinion in areas where it shouldn’t be. Savvy atheists should feel the same way. If their tactics work, they’ll be defenseless if the tables get turned in fifty years and only professing Muslims are treated with respect by the academia.

All of the problems you mentioned can be caused in ways closely related to some person or persons’ theistic beliefs. They can also be caused just as readily by any other kind of beliefs. It was atheists who resisted Big Bang theory – for decades – because it upset their anti-religious convictions. Everyone has a paradigm that they operate under, and no one is immune from resisting something that they think threatens it. Atheists don’t lack that paradigm, they simply have a different one.

Tom made a good point about diminishing talent. If Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and PZ Meyers had been able to apply their religious litmus test, they’d have excluded Newton, Kepler, Lister, Pasteur, Maxwell, and many others from participation. Talent is certainly being lost, because what young person wants to enter a field where their cherished values are openly mocked and insulted? Is the next Galileo giving up physics because he got tired of hearing his blowhard professor berating creationists? Did we lose my generation’s Pasteur to law school because he was sick of defending his belief in ID?

Lister is a particularly important example. He had trouble finding a university that would accept him because of his association with Quakers. He went on to found the entire practice of hospital sterilization. How many lives did he save that would have been lost waiting for someone else to do the work he did, if he’d been excluded on the basis of his faith?

As far as lost productivity goes, this is a parallel to the amoralist’s objection raised against religion: “you’re giving up too much”. I could just as easily argue that the non-believer has a better chance of losing productivity to promiscuity (leading to STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and so forth), drunkenness, and depression. All subject to debate, all open to argument, of course – but there are as many ways, if not more ways, for the non-believer to damage his scientific productivity as a result of his worldview as for the believer.

Also, productivity has been lost by those taking the attitude that naturalism has superior explanatory power to theism – such as in the Big Bang resistors, or in cases where naturalism is by definition powerless. Dawkins is a great example. He’s never really been a biologist; read comments from his college companions, and they’ll say that his true talent is rhetoric. He’s written one book about biology, and about fifteen dozen on religion. If he’d just shut up about religion, he’d be considerably more productive in biology, and we might actually have more intelligent, rational people pursuing the field. There are places where naturalism has little to no explanatory power, and part of the problem with the New Atheists is the insistence that only naturalistic explanations are possible.

There are far too many examples of brilliant scientists who don’t think that their faith has been eroded to agree with this in any sense:

I think most people admit that the study of many sciences (cosmology, evolution, etc.) are corrosive to religious beliefs.

Besides, who cares if a taxi cab driver thinks that molecular biology contradicts the Bible? The man who led the Human Genome Project (Francis Collins) says it has strengthened his faith. Who cares if a college history professor thinks that the Big Bang makes God unnecessary? “Most people” are not my concern. “People who know” are – and those who know don’t agree with that assessment.

These all appear to me to be today’s real costs of bringing religious convictions into the practice of science.

Looking at that literally, I can say that I completely agree that there are costs, but not that anti-religion is any better. Modern science is supposed to be concerned with the natural, and confined within a certain methodology. It is purposefully limited in that sense. Its scope certainly does intersect that of religion, but they are not the same thing. Atheists who bring their religious convictions into dominance over science are just as damaging as theists who do the same. For that reason, the scientific community should be less worried about the religious implications of their work, and the religious beliefs of their co-workers, and more worried about following scientific methodology.

Thanks for your involved response to my question.

I admit that this discussion has made me aware of newer, more nuanced historical interpretations of the relationship between religion and science than I was previously aware of (the Jaki interpretation), and I have enjoyed learning about it.

I’ve had to take some days off from this discussion (busier at work, plus I came to the realization that the discussion itself was like some sort of addictive habit).

I think the component of your argument that I still struggle with is your suggestion that a theist’s preconceptions are superior to an atheist’s when conducting science. 

While I now agree that monotheism and many actors in the Christian Church contributed significantly to the formation of the scientific method, this is different than saying a practicing scientist today is best served by following a religious path to science. Chiefly, I don’t see why personal belief in monotheism is preferable to holding the same preconceptions – orderliness, progression, etc. – minus the personal belief. 

As I see it, here are some of the problems with monotheistic preconceptions brought into science:

- Resistance to explanations
- Talent diminution
- Lost productivity

Resistance to explanations is, I think, self-explanatory. Evolution, for instance, is resisted by a large percentage of the population on the grounds that it runs counter to their religious convictions. Christian Scientists who hold the same convictions must reconcile their religious tenets with their scientific knowledge. One who does not hold religious convictions has one less paradigm that resists supplanting from an explanation of scientific evidence.

Talent diminution is a less recognized problem. I think most people admit that the study of many sciences (cosmology, evolution, etc.) are corrosive to religious beliefs. I think a lot of smart people who hold religious convictions are afraid of losing their beliefs, and they opt out science as a career choice. This is hard to prove but to me it seems obvious.

Lastly, productivity can be lost when one holds that the explanatory power of religion supersedes that of naturalism. Newton spent years working on the Bible Code. Men like Behe divert their attention and that of others towards explanations that explain less than the theory they seek to underdetermine. 

These all appear to me to be today’s real costs of bringing religious convictions into the practice of science. I’m sure you have objections and arguments for each of them, and I’d be curious to hear them.

Thanks.

Tony,

I’m not sure which link you mean. Charlie might have given a link that led to this, but I freely admit that I didn’t have the chance to read all of the resources provided during this. If you let me know which link, I’ll check it out and respond.

The theme of what we’re talking about is compatibility. Modern science requires certain assumptions that are fundamental to theism. Certain ideas that are destructive to science are also excluded by theism. For example, solipsism is a belief consistent with atheism, but not with theism. This is why I related the conception of science in a “womb” of theism to the development of an infant in the “womb” of a fertile mother. Non-theism could theoretically produce modern science, but it has a lot to overcome.

The distinction is not necessarily in what a person must believe, but what they may not. Chesterton put it very well:

“The tragedy of disbelieving in God is not that a person ends up believing in nothing, alas it is much worse, that person may end up believing in anything.” –G.K. Chesterton

Part of theism’s strong support of modern science, especially its development, is in its affirmations. It positively states that we really do exist, the universe exists objectively apart from our perceptions, and that universe is orderly, intelligible, and fundamentally consistent. The other part of its strength is in its denials. A theist, remaining true to theism, cannot lapse into solipsism. He cannot accept physical relativism. His view does not allow him to consider that the universe is anything other than orderly, intelligible, and fundamentally consistent. “econ grad” previously referred to this as a “guardrail”, which is an apt metaphor.

Non-theistic systems lack that “guardrail”. So, many ideas that are poisonous to modern science are compatible with non-theistic worldviews. Consider the ancient Greeks’ attitude towards experimentation as a perfect, if extreme, example. An atheist can be a solipsist, even though he has to set that assumption aside to pursue science. This is also the reason that theists see far less contradiction between the way objective science describes the universe and the what their theistic view expects. Non-theistic worldviews are at much greater risk of having to choose between their worldview and their work.

From a Christian perspective, this makes perfect sense. After all, one would expect theistic assumptions to not only be the most useful, but also the most accurate, if in fact the Christian God is real. From that standpoint, we would naturally say that any search for truth has to start with truthful assumptions – like theism.

The theist’s presumption of order and intelligibility is stronger than the atheist’s for exactly those reasons. For a theist to deny those would be to shed his most foundational beliefs. The atheist, on the other hand, is perfectly able to “fall off the wagon” without having to let go of his most foundational beliefs. From that standpoint, the theist anchors the fundamental assumptions that make science work in something outside of himself, and therefore they are not subject to change on the basis of his interpretations. One can argue about whether or not this is purely dogmatic, but you can’t argue that to throw out any of those scientific assumptions renders the whole methodology moot – so it’s a titanic strength of theism that those assumptions are absolutely non-negotiable. The non-theist has an “out” that allows his personal interpretations to override those fundamental assumptions.

After the fact, there isn’t much difference between the atheist and the theist in their ability to work with the idea of order. Think of it like the old arcade game PacMan. There were some people who designed it, and then played it. Others just played it. Both can make use of the game, now that it’s working. Once it’s set up, all you need is one hand and some quarters. But to start it, to design it, to set it up, you need something more than that. The designers had convincing reasons to believe that moving the control stick would move PacMan beforehand. The non-designers could only truly assume so post hoc.

Tom (I think) also made a good point about cultural assumptions. In some ways, this helps to support the notion that theism was absolutely required (not just far more preferable) to develop modern science. In the year 2008, we are living in a culture that takes all of these assumptions for granted. They may be inherently theistic, but nowadays they are also cultural, in a sense that is shared almost world-wide. We find the idea of an orderly universe obvious, just like the idea of a spherical earth, and a “stationary” sun. It’s hard to imagine any other view existing, but there was a time when most people thought the sun moved around earth, that earth was flat – and that the universe wasn’t uniform, intelligible, and orderly.

Strictly speaking (getting way way waaay back to the top), if a person was to really dig deep into their beliefs, and start from their out-workings before they approached science, atheism would have some major problems. There are just some things about modern science that are compatible with – but not natural to – the atheistic worldview. There are a lot of non-science-friendly ideas that the atheist could swallow.

This gets tricky, because atheism is a very slippery worldview, almost by definition. Theism has itself padlocked to certain ideas (repeated above ad nauseum). Atheism sometimes acts like a supernatural vacuum cleaner, sucking in anything and everything, so long as it doesn’t include deity, but regardless of it’s validity. So, the New Atheism may consider the rational, orderly nature of the universe to be overtly self-evident, but strictly speaking, that’s an adopted view for atheism, not an inherent one.

SteveK is more or less on the right track, but with a minor addition. Theists infer order presumptively, and confirm it experientially. Atheists infer order on the basis of experience, and then treat it as an assumption. However, rationally speaking, one must presume order to make any inferences at all. The very act of assuming that past experiences have meaning for future experiences is a presumption of order – one that atheists have more reasons to discount (prior to experiences) than to adopt.

I think you can see some of this still playing out. Postmodernism is a great example. It’s inherently atheistic – the idea that there is no absolute truth is about as anti-theistic as it gets. And what’s the biggest problem with postmodernism? Answer: its very tenuous, and frequently non-existent connection to reality. The idea that 2+2 might not equal 4 everywhere isn’t just illogical, but anyone who genuinely applies such a belief couldn’t get anywhere in modern science (or anywhere other than philosophy, for that matter). They’d have to jettison that belief in absolute relativism at some point in the laboratory. So, even in a post-scientific age, we can see evidence and examples of how non-theistic worldviews are fully capable of tumbling away from the ideas that make modern science possible.

Do I have that correct, MM?

I have a question for you about theism being the basis for science, and, ti seems, strict atheism providing no foundation for practicing science.

You wrote:

Briefly (criminally briefly, I know, but I’m not up for dissertations tonight), an atheist has no reason to assume that anything is consistent or orderly. Even experiments and experiences that seem to suggest repeatability only speak to the experiences that specific person has had – you have nothing other than presumption on which to assume that those rules hold for everyone else.

Theism not only includes that presumption of order, but it puts it into a context that logically expects it. In short, theism presumes that nature is orderly, on the basis of its creation. Atheism has no basis on which to pre-assume that nature is orderly.

I think that from the link you provided me this argument is made in greater detail by Jaki — do you have a link that more fully explains this argument?

My problem is that it doesn’t seem untenable to me for an atheist to hold (conditionally) that he exists, that the universe exists, that others exist, and the universe is orderly. I just don’t understand how the theists presumption of order that derives from creation is somehow stronger than an atheist’s conditional presumption of order from prior experience.

As well, what fundamentally differentiates the presumption of order from a theist and an atheist? They both experience it. Both presume it exists outside themselves, but I don’t see a substantial difference between an atheist presuming a world where order exists, and a theist presuming a world where order exists as created by God.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding it, but it seems that this argument holds that atheism and science are incompatible (not that religion and science are, as is so often suggested.) This would seem to run counter to the fact that so many atheists practice science, so I think I’m just misunderstanding the argument.

I do, however, have experience with fundamentalists whose practice of their monotheism is anti-scientific, so I believe that the smiley happy, arm in arm picture that I’d like to see between religions and science is not, at least in my contemporary experience, always the case. It depends on how you define religion. As you gentlemen define it I have few ultimate quibbles.

I don’t see that kind of fundamentalism often, but when I do, I have the same strong sense of disagreement with it that I think you have. I appreciate your words of encouragement on our approach. Thanks.

We also have always to bear in mind that nature and religion, rightly understood and interpreted, cannot produce contradictory facts; but that coming to complete and accurate interpretations is a process that continues, not an accomplished fact. Along the way there will be apparent and real contradictions based on the current state of knowledge that have to be resolved.

By the way, thanks for the discussion.

Medicine Man, thanks for all of the great information and support.

I am saying that science is non-theistic because it doesn’t account for purpose. This is not the same thing as saying that science contradicts theism or that it’s incompatible with it.

I admit that the relationship between science and religion is both rich and complex. I largely like the practice of religion the way that you both and Tom define it. I do, however, have experience with fundamentalists whose practice of their monotheism is anti-scientific, so I believe that the smiley happy, arm in arm picture that I’d like to see between religions and science is not, at least in my contemporary experience, always the case. It depends on how you define religion. As you gentlemen define it I have few ultimate quibbles.

I have some other thoughts / questions / trial balloons — I’ll try and post them later, but cannot do so now.

Thanks.

The Christian religion did more to help develop the scientific method than it did to impede it. That is a fair summation of what I think now as a result of this discussion, and I don’t know if that’s where I was when this topic began. So, at least for me, this was productive.

Excellent.

But doesn’t this seem a little contradictory?

I say that not only is this unprovable, but that because the scientific method is inherently non-theistic (natural events occur without reference to purpose) the scientific revolution could probably have only occurred by separating itself from theism.

Did you read this link?http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
(sorry, I am not having any success embedding links…)
As Socrates, the stoics and Aristotle were likely the cause of the miscarriage in Greece, the Christian Church’s position, and official pronouncements, facilitated science’s healthy birth.

The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.

These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.

The rise of science needed the broad and persistent sharing by the whole population, that is, the entire culture, of a very specific body of doctrines relating the universe to a universal and absolute intelligibility embodied in the tenet about a personal God, the Creator of all. Therefore it was not chance that the first physicist was John Buridan, professor at the Sorbonne around the year 1330, just after the time of the two above-mentioned statements of the Church’s teaching office.
…

Jaki clearly affirms that in Christianity, a slide into pantheism was prevented because the doctrine of the creation was bolstered up by faith in the Incarnation. Pantheism is invariably present when the eternal and cyclic view of the cosmos prevails. The uniqueness of the Incarnation and Redemption dashed to pieces any possibility of the eternal and cyclic view; for if the world were cyclic, the once-and-for-all coming of Christ would be undermined. The uniqueness of Christ secures a linear view of history and makes Christianity more than just one among many historical factors influencing the world.

…because the scientific method is inherently non-theistic (natural events occur without reference to purpose) the scientific revolution could probably have only occurred by separating itself from theism.

Now I do have to wonder if you’re simply misunderstanding or being deliberately mulish.

We’ve answered the charge that theism contradicts the scientific method by demonstrating the opposite – that modern science relies on many unprovable assumptions that are natural only to a theistic worldview. We’ve answered the charge that theism somehow implies a God who incessantly tinkers with reality. And, yet again, by referencing titans of science who saw absolutely no distinction between the “truth” of their faith and the “truth” of their science.

The scientific revolution didn’t happen by distancing itself from theism, it happened through an embracing of it. Putting absolute ‘faith’ in the ideas of intelligibility, order, repeatability, and so forth were absolutely required for modern science. Logically, we can’t say that theism was necessary – just like I can’t say that a 60-year-old woman can’t conceive. What I can say, and history shows, is that theism makes modern science exponentially more likely to arise than any other view – just like a 21-year-old woman is exponentially more likely to conceive than the geriatric.

“Purpose” is not a prerequisite for modern scientific methodology, but order, repeatability, and consistency are. Those come most naturally from theism.

If you’re going to insist that theism opposes science, and that the scientific method is inherently opposed to it, you’ll have to do a much better job of showing why and how. We’ve given some fundamental reasons why this is not the case. If all you have is “I don’t believe it”, then there isn’t much else I know to say. Frankly, you seem to be moving backwards on that point – going from an acknowledgment of compatibility to an assertion of contradiction.