Does Science Conflict With Religion

Introduction

Science comes up a lot in debates between atheists and religious people. There are those who think that science and religion are incompatible, and others that see no conflict.

In this essay I'll try to make the case that there is a conflict between science and religion, and that this is a big deal.

Why religious people say there is no conflict

Some religious and non-religious people argue that even in principle there cannot be any conflict between science and religion. Before making my case, I'll deal with some of those common objections.

There are four main ways religious people say that there is no conflict between science and religion:

1. Science and religion are concerned with different topics, and there is no overlap between them so it is impossible for them to conflict.
2. All claims made in religious scripture can be interpreted in a way that does not conflict with any future scientific discovery.
3. Religion preaches the value of seeking knowledge.
4. Many eminent scientists throughout history have been religious.

I'll address each of these in turn.

Science And Religion Have No Overlap

This is Stephen Jay Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). According to this idea, science is concerned with how things work, whereas religions are concerned with questions of purpose and how we should live. Nothing that religion talks about has any bearing on science, and nothing that science discovers has any bearing on religion.

There are some problems with this.

First, religions make many claims about scientific matters. Most religions make claims about cosmology, and where life comes from, and what happens after we die.

Secondly, many religious people forget this if they come across a scientific finding that seems to support their religion. Dawkins imagines how people would react if it was discovered that DNA evidence from Israel/Palestine 2000 years ago showed a man with no father. I think it's pretty obvious that Christians and Muslims would not say that this has nothing to do with their religion.

Religions have historically conflicted with science. Take Gallileo. Take Darwin. They were considered to be heretics, because what they said was in conflict with religious scripture. The reason that people don't think this is the case today is because religion has been watered down to accomadate for those discoveries.

Scripture Is Compatible With Science When Interpreted Properly

When apparent conflicts between scientific knowledge and scripture are pointed out, a common response is for the believer to find an interpretation of the scripture that is compatible with science.

It's possible to interpret things however you like. However, some interpretations are better than others. A good interpretation is one that you could have made long before the scientific discovery, that has as few assumptions as possible.

In other words, Abrahamic religions don't get to pretend that they are consistent with evolution by natural selection, when a parsimonious reading of the text clearly implies creation of all animals at once.

Some religious people state that no scientific discovery will ever be in conflict with religious scripture, regardless of which way things turn out to be. This is not a good thing. If a piece of text is compatible with two opposing pieces of evidence, then it is not saying anything. It is useless. It's the work of a politician, not an all-knowing deity. Someone with something to say takes the risk, and if they are right they will be vindicated by the evidence. This was the difference that the philospher Karl Popper noticed between Einstein and Freud when he wrote about the difference between science and pseudo-science.

The fact that throughout history religious people have changed what they consider to be literal and metaphorical has more to do with scientific advancement than new revelation or theological knowledge.

Religion Teaches The Value Of Seeking knowledge

Religion pays lip service to it. But if it really exhorted the seeking of knowledge, it would give wildly different messages to its adherents.

Imagine teaching the value of living a healthy diet, then instructing people to consume mercury and forgo sleep.

The philosophy of science was not taken from the Bible or the Quran, it was developed over a millenium after, refined, edited, by increasingly atheistic people. Starting with Francis Bacon, and culminating with Karl Popper, David Hume, and Ernst Mach (atheists). Religion can therefore not take credit for the advent of science, and is more accurately seen as a hindrance of it.

Many Eminent Scientists Are Religious

A lot of this is historical. Being known as a blasphemer was a terminal condition. And many of the private writings of these figures indicate that they were not actually religious.

People can also compartmentalise, although it's not fun or easy. Isaac Newton is one example that comes to mind. He invented calculus, formulated the laws of motion, and the field of optics, yet he spent the latter half of his life searching for secret messages in the Bible, and investigating alchemy and astrology. To many people there is a clear incompatibilty here. The first half of his life was a life of science. And the second half was a life of superstitious madness. Most people that compartmentalise aren't quite so brilliant or so crazy. But the way they act at work, with their family, by themselves, with their friends, when they're driving, can be very different. It's the same with science and religion. The nature of science imposes some constraints on how they reason, but people have all sorts of strategies for dealing with cognitive dissonance, and intelligent people are particularly adept at this. They use advanced mental gymnastics to reconcile the irreconcilable, they try not to explore certain areas, they use muddly language, they work hard to renew their faith.

My personal favourite objection to this argument is given by PZ Myers. He talks about a famous serial killer, and then reveals that this killer is a devout Christian. Christians are often quick to denounce him, and say that his actions are contrary to the spirit of Christianity. I agree with PZ Myers and the Christians on this. But if we're being consistent and saying that there is a conflict between Christianity and murder even if individual murderers can be Christians, then we must recognise that just because there are scientists that are religious, does not mean that there cannot be a conflict between science and religion.

Finally, 92% of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists, in contrast to 10% of the general population. I'm not using this as an argument by authority. But it fits with what I'm saying. The people in the academy of science are far more scientifically inclined than the average person. And even though people compartmentalise, it's likely that the habits formed by their career carry over into the rest of their lives.

One explanation given to explain why scientists are less religious than the general population is bias against religion. But how did this happen? How did we get to there from a society where atheism was punished by society? The atheist scientists must have pulled a brilliant coup.

The more scientifically presitious someone is, the more likely they are to be atheists. Even those scientists who describe themselves as religious in surveys, when asked about their specific beliefs, tend to be a lot closer to atheism than their general population. Far fewer of them believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead than the general population.

If scientists are better equiped to know how things work, and religion is wrong about how things work, then it's expected that fewer scientists will be religious, despite childhood indoctrination.

What is Science

To make my case for the incompatibilty between science and religion, I'd like to define a few key terms.

The problem science tries to solve is that humans have faulty brains. Casinos all over the world take advantage of this fact.

Our brains work relatively well in certain contexts, but they're highly energy intensive, and evolutionarily it's not worth the cost to improve. Most species on the planet have inferior brains (except for maybe dolphins and octopodes) and get along fine, humans have evolved in a cognitive niche, but we're limited. The brain consumes about 20% of the body's energy, and it's only 2% of our body mass. Human brains can often do certain things amazingly well. We're still having a hard time replicating some of the things that human brains do in machines. But our brains are also riddled with cognitive biases.

Science is a method designed to deal with this problem, similar to how TCP/IP is a protocol designed to deal with UDP being faulty. It's desigened to account for our cognitive biases and help generate a better understanding of the world through observation. It does this using methods like replication, and peer review, which can lessen the impact of individual cognitive biases. Using the scientific method, humanity has accumulated a vast body of knowledge that represents our best understanding of the world.

What does it mean to accept science

Accepting science means having a high credence in whatever is best supported by science. If scientific understanding indicates that all of the continents were once joined and drifted apart, accepting science would mean believing that all continents were once joined and drifted apart. To the extent that someone believes in certain factual claims that are counter to what science says, they are not accepting science.

But accepting science means more than that. It also means being open to the possibilty that any position could be true after applying the scientific method. I don't mean, after all the evidence we currently have, seriously taking the idea that the moon could be made of cheese. I mean, with regards to a position on which there is no existing evidence, the evidence could indicate something that we previously thought differently about. That means that in the domain of scientific claims for which we don't yet have evidence, we must either change our positions once we have evidence, or try not to have positions without evidence.

What it means to be religious

A religion is a set of beliefs that places supernatural elements in a key role. Typically these supernatural beings are used to explain things in our world, and have a purpose for us and the world. To be religious is to believe that your deity of choice exists, and any claims made in scripture are true. One is supposed to believe this, even if they don't presently have evidence for specific claims.

Where Is The conflict?

I think there are a few conflicts between science and religion:

1. There are specific factual claims in scripture that are directly in contradiction with science.
2. There are implied claims in scripture that are contradicted by science.
3. There are methodological conflicts between science and religion that present an obstacle to properly doing science.

Science Directly Contradicts Religion

There are claims made in scripture that are, according to our best scientific knowledge, wrong. This leaves the religious a few choices:

• Ignore the conflict.
• Claim that there is an interpretation where there is no conflict.
• Reject science and accept religion.
• Reject religion and accept science.

Multiple essays can be written about this, but I will address a few scriptural verses that are incompatible with science from the world's major religions.

Christianity

• Evolution. According to the creation account in Genesis, God created humanity from Adam and Eve, he created all of the animals. This is not compatible with evolution. Or more specifically, not compatible with the current scientific understanding of it. Humans did not descend from two first humans, our genetic diversity would be very different if it did.

• Cosmology. Similarly, Genesis describes the creation of the world in 6 days. More glaringly, it describes the order of creation, which is counter to science. It says that God created the Earth, then light, day and night. Then the oceans and the sky, then land. Then he made plants, then he created the day/night cycle and seasons, then he made living creatures, and then humans. The seasons were around long before any life on Earth, as a result of the tilt of the Earth. Light existed long before the Earth. Some of these "days" were millions of times longer than others.

• Geology Noah's ark is simply impossible. For a start, there is not enough water on Earth. Furthermore, it would kill all sealife, since they can only live at certain pressures and salinities. It is impossible to fit all animals on a ship with those dimensions - there are around 8.7 million species on Earth. Genesis specifies the Bible to be approximately 134×22×13 m. Many of these species need to eat other species, excrete a lot, don't reproduce in pairs, etc.

• The exodus. The Ancient Egyptians kept detailed census records, and this shows that the Egyptians cannot have enslaved as many Jews as the Bible says they did. There simply was not that many Jews or Egyptians at that time. In fact, there is no evidence that the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians.

Islam

• Embrology. The Quran says that sperm forms between the backbone and the ribs. This is what physicians used to think, but it actually comes from the testes and various glands below the bladder. It also says in the Quran that God created bones and then covered them in flesh - a view Galen described previously. In actuality, muscle forms before cartlidge gets replaced with bone.
• Astronomy. It says the moon has light, it doesn't. The moon reflects light from the sun.

Science Indirectly Contradicts Religion

There are assumptions religious people make about certain claims that aren't directly made in the claim, but are strongly implied. For example, religious people assume that following the commands in their Holy Book is good for them. Sometimes this is explicitly mentioned elsewhere in scripture. And in those cases, the commands given are often not actually the same as what science recommends. It's not a direct contradiction because the command does not say why or how it's good for you, but it demonstrates a conflict between accepting science and accepting religion.

Science And Religion Are Methodologically at odds

Science is about starting with evidence, and then ending at a conclusion. But being religious means you start with a conclusion, and evidence is a nice bonus.

The kind of mind that is inclined towards science is therefore very different from the religious mind.

This is why, when scientists walk into a lab, even theistic ones, inside the lab they're atheists.

Scientists don't have faith. They don't walk into the lab thinking that even if the evidence is against their theory it will all work out in the end.

Religious people must.

What's the big deal

I think that there are two important implications to religion conflicting with science:

• Religions are false
• Religion is getting in the way of making society better

Religions Are False

What do we call most beliefs that conflict with science? Wrong. If someone who believed in Zeus was told how lightning really works, imagine how people would react if told that maybe it was science that was wrong. After all, Zeus is a deity but we are mere mortals. What do we know?

This kind of embarrassing motivated reasoning is only socially acceptable for popular religions, and it shouldn't be.

Of course it is possible that we or science is wrong if we think we see a conflict with religion. And yet science is the best tool we've got, so we should use it.

Religion Is In The Way

So what if science conflicts with religion? What's the problem.

If scientists are disproportionately atheistic, can't they just keep doing what they're doing?

I think that this is partially true but insufficient. Certainly the fact that scientists are atheistic helps. This is only made possible by the fact that religiousity in society has decreased so much that anti-blasphemy laws are no longer on the table.

However, it is not enough for scientists to obtain the most accurate understanding of the natural world and then leave their findings in books and papers, never to be used by everyone else. To get the most value out of science, we need to apply their findings in our lives. We need policies and institutions that are designed around the best available science. We need to use the best science to inform our important decisions in life. And to do that we need a public that is receptive to science. A public that is scientifically literate. And if the public is religious and if there is a conflict between science and religion then religion will get in the way of adopting the best science. Religiousity predicts negative attitudes towards science

I think that this manifests in one key area that underlies many other key topics: human nature. Many people have a fundamentally religious notion of the mind. This underlies their belief in free will, in what is possible for people to do. Many things that science tells us about our brain are ignored and assumed to be choices. This affects our criminal justice system, our education system, how we deal with mental health, and how we treat the people in our lives. These are all very important things, and the major obstacle towards improvement in those areas are the religious views of the general public.

Furthermore, this contributes to science developing in only the less religious nations. Imagine how much more science could be done if it was taboo in fewer parts of the world. What if we had 10 times as many scientists studying the mind without religious baggage? We could treat neuro-degenerative diseases like Alzheimers and ALS.

Conclusion

In summary, science and religion are not compatible. We have to choose which one to keep. And it's really no choice at all. We should give up superstition and seek real understanding if we want to make life better.