USA Today has finally put up my ten-minute video debate with Karl Giberson, vice-President of the BioLogos Foundation. The topic: Are science and faith compatible?
I haven’t watched this version due to viral malefaction, but I remember that the audio and video were a bit rough. But hey, how often does a poor atheist boy get to say this kind of stuff in a place like USA Today?
Nice job (works better as an audio file). More evidence that the audio and video are “incompatible.”
Oh, and hope you’re feeling better…
Jerry – you’ve got a great speaking voice and a wonderful cadence. It’s a shame that your webcam is so awful 🙂
I noticed how you introduced the philosophical incompatibility politely finished that “I’m sure you have more to add on this subject” (paraphrasing). Of course he did not have anything to add, sadly. I sort of wish you weren’t such a polite, gentle fellow and would ask Giberson a few pointed questions instead of letting him keep sending the questions at you.
Or maybe you did and he just refused to answer.
Half-way through, I love how Giberson redefines “theologian” to be only those Christians who don’t believe in any of the teachings of the bible.
It’s the problem of the mushiness of the word “God” where many people use it to refer to the concept-of-God or some cultural tradition. Here Giberson seems to be saying that science and theology are compatible provide you only consider theologians who make no actual claims, unlike the 60-80% of Americans who are religious and probably the vast majority of the world’s preachers. I wonder if he realizes how much of religion you have to eviscerate to even get to this mushy sort of compatibility (which I disagree with anyway). It was nice that he hinted that essentially all practising Christians were wrong but perhaps he could be more explicit next time.
I was hoping Jerry would press him on why he believed his theology was right and the other was wrong about when he called out of time.
If the answer is that theology has had to adapt to science, then Giberson is claiming that it’s only fair to look at compatibility with theology that has made itself more compatible with science. That would be a No True Scotsman.
Additionally it raises the point that theological progress can only occur given a real way of knowing, like science.
Totally agree. The fact that religion is forced to adapt to science to remain compatible is not compatibility. It is submission.
I’m so totally going to borrow (i.e. steal) that: religion is submissive (obedient) to science.
Hah. Giberson claims that science addresses the “easy” questions while religion tackles the “hard” questions, like free will, morality. Pffft.
What has religion done in these areas, but make assertions? Meanwhile science has all but proven that free will is an incoherent concept.
Religion: Providing Easy Answers to Hard Questions for 6,000 years.
Yeah that comment of Giberson’s pissed me off, too. Fact is, the answers arrived at by science are hard-won. The “answers” of religion are totally made up. So again, the conflict here is between what is demonstrable and what is not.
1) Does this explain Jerry’s recent interest in the question of free will?
2) Giberson is wrong about the origin of morality, he should familiarize himself with what science is currently doing on that topic.
3) “Religion: Providing Easy Answers to Hard Questions for 6,000 years.”
Yes, and unfortunately the answers have proven to be either A) wrong or B) impossible to verify and contradictory to other religious answers.
4) Giberson is using an argument from ignorance. Even if there are questions which science has not or can not answer, this does not establish that the answers provided by religion are correct, or even useful.
The nature of free will and morality have been largely explained by rational thinkers (wearing either scientific or philosophical hats). They are hard in the sense that the answers are (a) counterintuitive and (b) unappealing to most people.
Religion has played no useful role in answering these questions. Quite the opposite. It has encouraged people to stick with intuitive but erroneous answers.
The hard questions can also be addressed by just making stuff up. Merely “addressing” a question is not enough. You have to be able to figure out whether you have provided the right answer. Religion simply can’t do that.
Jerry, I admire your restraint in letting him complete his thoughts uninterrupted at the end. I would have lost it at, “Science finds success because it only tackles the easy problems.”
Evolution, all of medical science, nuclear power, and on and on, and all require a deep understanding of their respective subjects, far beyond what any religion in history has even imagined. I imagine they’re only easy if you’re not the one who had to solve them. Being such simple problems, it’s even more of a strike against religion that it made no progress towards their solution in its thousands of years of authority.
Exactly. They only seem easy in hindsight. Countless man & woman hours have gone into overturning bad ideas and finding the few good ones to build up the knowledge base Giberson takes for granted today.
““Science finds success because it only tackles the easy problems.”
Religion tackles the (so called) hard problems and makes shit up?
“Web TV” is a slow-scan process. You may have better results by holing more “still”. I agree with the earlier posters, and yourself, that religions have been “making stuff up” as they go. Jesus and Mo’ had a comic on that line.
OMG! You were SO strident! And Militant! Your defense of science simply proved that you’re just a different kind of FUNDAMENTALIST! Us gawd fearin souls need to hide our childrun.
/snark
Well done sir. You managed to give him enough space so that he could be hated by believers and atheists alike. Only the wealthy accomodationists would node sagely at his arguments.
And yet it’s Giberson who calls Evangelicals backwards.
And here I was thinking that Gibberish will never be mentioned again …
In other news, Ruse is being obtuse (as he normally is) – I wonder how the accommodationists are meant to inform the superstitious when it’s so damned hard to figure out if they’re trying to say anything of importance. For example, see Ruse’s latest drivel about his visit to Ken Ham’s re-education facility and see if you can figure out whether or not Ruse approves of Ham’s version of creationism. I certainly prefer Jerry’s brand of shrill, militant atheism – it’s a very pleasant shrillness and a very gentle militancy but at least it’s a godless godlessness.
Now I have to google.
Wait, that was months ago, wasn’t it? All I see is old stuff.
I think our side needs a Breitbart-type, someone who can offer 100k to anyone that proves religion can inform science… but I hope our man isn’t such a cunt
Kindly omit misogynist language.
Have Liars for Jesus ever helped anyone? The only people who need Breitbart are those who are fighting reality.
And yeah, ditto with OB.
pwn’d.
When Giberson brought up free will I was half hoping you’d just say “well free will doesn’t exist, so that’s an easy one!”
Hey, Jerry. Glad to know that you are feeling better and posting.
Just to make you feel even better, you should know that Pigliucci is claiming you don’t know what you are talking about over on Rationally Speaking.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/
In the comments, even his co-blogger Julia Galef spoke up to defend Jerry’s argument.
He’s not getting much support, and is instead getting scolded pretty badly for being such a pedant on this strangely recurring topic.
I love it – there’s nothing I like better to hear than “those other faith-head’s beliefs are just nuts” (or uneducated, etc.) from faith-heads. It’s like they all believe that they have some sort of special antenna pointed directly to god.
I know… it highlights the real reason accommodations are so peeved at atheists. Giberson knows that Jerry feels the same way about Giberson’s magical beliefs that Giberson feels about those other “less educated” faith-heads. And for the same reasons! He really wants to say that HIS brand of faith is compatible with science –but not all those other wacky brands of belief. But he can’t– because when you argue the “pro-faith” side you are on the team with all other faith based beliefs, superstitions, and un-evidenced claims, and no faithhead is going to think Giberson knows “god” better than s/he does!
At 11:01, K. Giberson states that, “Moler speaks for an extreme fundamentalist view that is the most intellectually impoverished part of christianity, and they essentially represent a viewpoint that has remained in the 19th century, and I don’t think they remain a fair representation, although unfortunately there is a lot of popular support”….so explain to me, how are they the ‘extreme fundamentalist minority’ if they have a lot of ‘popular support’?
You know, I thought it was super difficult to discuss the matter with die-hard christians, who when cornered by an argument resort to, “oh no, you are talking about religion, but I’m talking about god”, so you pin them down again with a different argument and they retort, “oh no, you are talking about god now, but I’m talking about religion”….but man, accommodationist have one more trick up their sleeves, they say, “oh no, you are speaking of religion (or god), but what I’m talking about are elite theologians”….
ughh…..(as Jon Stewart says, “I give up”)
I wonder how Mohler will respond to Giberson’s view that his brand of faith is “intellectually impoverished”.
I think FAITH is an “intellectually impoverished” way of knowing anything about the real world.
How frustrating…
“Science addresses the easy questions while religion tackles the harder ones”…
this can’t be good for my health….
time for an ice bath…where’s the vodka?….
!!!!!!!!!!!
You did an admiral job Prof. Coyne; your arguments were clear, succint, and fair.
Oh but how I wish Christopher Hitchens was there, sitting next to you, not allowing Giberson to close in such a weasel way. That’s what I love most about the way Hitchens argues, he won’t let innaccurate claims go by for the sake of kindness (I’m sure you were out of time and had no choice but to close in that manner, but still, Hitchens has that way about him, where he’ll make it damn possible even if it annoys the hell out of his opponent).
My wishes to Hitchen’s health.
Gah! I was annoyed by his wooly-headed triangulating.
I also was irritated by his throwing out crap at the last moment, like claiming that science has never explained the origins of morality. Heck, any reasonably competent sociologist could explain that – morality comes from humans needing each other to survive, and working out ways to function in a group. I’d suggest that the only universal no-no is (unauthorized by the local leadership) killing of someone else in your tribe. ‘Morality’ regarding sex and property varies greatly across the human species, so claiming any universal standard of morality is simply bad science.
Awesome, Jerry! I sure am proud to be on the “gnu atheist” team! You cam across as so much more likable than Giberson too. You smiled often; he didn’t smile at all –very serious pedant, that Giberson.
Like others, I was bugged by Giberson throwing out the “free will” and morality argument at the end to imply that religion has some sort of answer and science doesn’t. What science has is evidence that morality is a product of evolution and “free will” is an illusion of the mind. Of course, those of faith are unlikely to examine this evidence, because studies show that when science conflicts with faith, people choose the story they were told they were saved for believing in (and they negate all conflicting evidence or pretend it doesn’t exist as Giberson did.)
I loved the part about “one science and many religions.” The religious folks are in a tough position because they really only want to believe that THEIR faith is compatible with science– they KNOW all those other faiths aren’t– that’s why they don’t practice them. But they can’t say that when they need other believers to prop up the notion that faith is a worthy means of obtaining knowledge.
It’s just such an absurd argument.
A dialogue from the terminator. After interviewing Kyle Reese about traveling through time, naked, psychiatrist Dr. Silberman says:
This is great stuff. I could make a career out of this guy. See how clever it is? It doesn’t require a shred of proof. Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant.
He might as well have been interviewing John the Baptist (hey they found John’s bones in Bulgaria just a few days ago). To say the Terminator story is compatible or should be reconciled with science, or proved with a scientific method would seem a little silly.
Interesting interview to watch all the way through!
I think Giberson was comparing the belief in Jesus with the ‘belief’ in induction at one point, which is pretty lame; he seems to want to give equal standing to results that work for theists *internally* and those that work *externally*. Because religion gives people what they want (an ‘affirmation’) -> it works! But this would falsely justify any number of bogus and contradictory methodologies and world views, based on the variety of human wants and desires. And we see that it in fact does.
The point of science, surely, is to eliminate these internal points of contention to determine an external, universal reality, or, at least, get closer to it. From this viewpoint I think we can see Giberson ‘affirming’ the incompatibility of science and religion.
I never knew the G in Giberson was hard, so I did learn something from him in this video.
Oh, and one more thing: how does he *know* that it’s the elite theologians that are right, and not the hoi-polloi?
Simple – he defines “theologian” to be those God-talkers with mushy enough views that they make no actual claims. It’s positively screaming No True Scotsman.
The religious can always wiggle off the hook. Characterise religious belief one way, and they’ll swing the discussion another way. It’s inescapable. There is no way to address religious belief, because it is not really, when you come down to it, a matter of specific beliefs. It has to do with a kind of overall sense that life has meaning, purpose, and some sort of pre-ordained end. It puts out feelers towards the world, but none of them are essential to the overall tone of the believing project, and as soon as a tentacle is endangered, by intellectual question or ridicule, it is quickly pulled back out of harm’s way.
Religion is, in a sense, the shimmer on a life lived with apparent purpose, and in this sense alone it is compatible with practically every belief. It is, however, dependent on its belief tentacles, which are always feeling around for firm ‘tentacle holds’ in reality, but is not absolutely committed at any particular time to any particular one of those holds, and will deny pro tem the necessity of any particular ‘tentacle holds’ rather than to give up on the project as a whole. Of course, the same tentacle will reach out again as soon as the threat has passed.
Elite theologians are used, not as experts, but as escape mechanisms, to protect the particular belief under threat at the time. They are not being used to to delimit a body of religious beliefs, but as a defence mechanism. The apologist doesn’t really understand theology – and arguably neither does the theologian — but adverts to it whenever one of his tentacles is endangered, and gives him time to pull it back out of harm’s way.
I suspect this is why someone like Karl Giberson can think that religion and science are compatible, because he is probably not even aware that religious belief is a restless sea of reaching out believingly and then retreating into the fastnesses of ambiguity. By the end of the interview this dynamic becomes more and more clear.
Perhaps those tentacles are much harder to direct and control in the present discussion milieu that faith itself is what is found lacking, inept, and useless to garner knowledge and increase progress.
Those tentacles are now like the gun in the hands of an person who thought she would be safe with it, and finds that the same gun is being used against her by the very same people she sought to protect herself against.
As far as I can see, Giberson is indirectly choking himself with the tentacles. But he has faith in these tentacles, they always worked, he just can’t see that reality has caught up, and they are now useless. Their very failure shows hows banal and ineffective faith is. I see no hope for him though, he will die a faith head.
Apologists also often don’t seem to notice when over the course of an argument, every one of their tentacles has let go at some point or another.
So simple, the questions that scientismists seek to explain, that one wonders why science isn’t finished yet. Anyway, my impression:
Coyne: They’re compatible?
Giberson: Yes, warble sophisticated garble theologians!
C: What about the fundies who say they’re not?
G: (inaudible)… goat-screwing reactionaries.
C: You’re a Christian. What about all those miracles?
G: Those are metaphors for the need to talk about whether we need to consider the question of how to approach the matter.
C: But what about the resurrection? Isn’t that a clear violation of thermodynamics? How is that compatible?
G: blarbleglarble Religion makes people feel better. glurge!
C: So does homeopathy.
G: mumbletygrumbletybafflegabbety
C: You ain’t got no pancake mix.
G: I have tenure.
“Science addresses the easy questions while religion tackles the harder ones””
*TWITCH*
This is why I could never do public dialogue. I’d have gotten very angry, very snappish, and very snarky. And that’s assuming I didn’t just say “Hey: go fuck yourself” and walk away.
And they say atheists are smug/condescending!
“Science addresses the easy questions”
If that were true I would be a scientist! I’m much too lazy to be a scientist. Easy my ass.
I notice that the question posed in the caption of the video is different from the title. I think you may have mentioned this earlier, Jerry:
“Can religion and science coexist?” – Yes
“Are religion and science compatible?” – No
@Richard
“The nature of free will and morality have been largely explained by rational thinkers”
Really? By whom?
Dennett, Marc Hauser, V.S. Ramachandran, for starts. Here’s a couple of sample articles to clue you in:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality.hauser.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/05/07/electrical-stimulation-produces-feelings-of-free-will
Religious people like Giberson are either unaware or very incurious when it comes to this growing field of information. I think they want to believe that we cannot test such concepts and so they keep themselves ignorant about articles which appear to negate the primary arguments they use to feel that their religious beliefs are rational.
I don’t know if your including me in with the religious people like Giberson, (I’m agnostic by the way) I just disagree with the comment that free will has been explained. The problem I have with that statement is, how do you know if you have explained free will? It isn’t scientifically testable!
Well, I think the concept is testable… or at least the feeling of “will” is. See the second link above. Brain studies also show that the brain seems to decide before a person is aware that they’ve made a decision.
I guess It depends on what you mean by “free will”. Obviously, people have different preferences, urges, temptations, opportunities, life experiences, and brains that affect their will… drugs and brain damage also affect their will– so the only way the will seems “free” is that we make choices that involve no detectable outside coercion (though some people claim that gods, demons or other voices in their head swayed their decisions.) In any case, there are still material reasons the brain chooses one thing over another whether a person is aware of those reasons or not. We also know that people will make up reasons as to why they did things when asked (see split bran studies.) So the reasons we tell ourselves we do things or think things are often not the real reasons.
Regarding will, I have no desire to molest children and I’ve never desired to kill anybody… am I “choosing” not to do those things? Is my dog choosing not to kill my cats? Isn’t someone who has urges to do such things –who then controls those urges–exercising more “will” than I am or that my dog is doing in refraining from these activities? Are we all exercising “free will” or not?
If religion helps people exercise their will, why is it not enough to keep clergy from molesting children? Do you think anyone CHOOSES to be attracted to children? Or do they find themselves attracted and then deal with those urges via attempts at controlling will? Can you will yourself to love someone or believe something? Or are you just “acting” like you love or believe? Or are you loving and believing while telling yourself that you “chose” to do so when there really was no choice?
To me, “free will” is an incoherent concept. I’m not sure people really even know what they mean.
I didn’t assume anything about your religion except that you might be asking your question insincerely because you wanted to imply that the lack of an answer meant something. My response regarding religion is in regards to Giberson (who is religious). I’ve noticed religious people in general seem very uninterested in what the studies about “free will” are showing us. They have a hard time accepting that free will is probably an illusion like a flat earth. Yet this is what increasing studies are showing. They also don’t want to see morality as something that is based in evolution, but Hauser’s studies show otherwise.
Like you, religious people want to believe that “free will” is beyond the concept of science; if science can’t prove it doesn’t exist, then, in their mind, it does. It doesn’t occur to them that when something exists there should be measurable evidence for that something. Scientists should be able to test it. But it’s hard to test “free will” because there is no coherent definition for it.
“Free will seems to require an immaterial “soul” and there really is no evidence that consciousness can exist absent a material brain. Everything we know about consciousness requires specific brain structures to exist– including the feeling of “will”. But I don’t think any amount of evidence would be enough to convince someone who believes that their salvation depends upon believing in “free will”(however they define it). Free will, souls, and gods seem to be part of the religious package deal of nebulously defined concepts people feel they need to “believe in” to be saved.
So long as there’s no clear or agreed upon definition, then, it’s true, science can’t test it. But that doesn’t make it any more real than fairies or Scientology’s engrams (which we also can’t test). This is why increasing numbers of scientists are finding it to be an illusion.
I gave you links, because you asked. For non religious people these seem to be links and sources that would be helpful regarding the question you asked. What I want to know is why you asked the question if you really thought there was no answer because you believe it isn’t testable? Did you read the links?