Reader jsp sent me this new Brian Dalton video, “Science and Religion are Mortal Enemies (Part I)”, saying it was “right up my alley.” In fact it is, as it emphasizes one big difference between science and faith—the value of doubt and questioning—that I discuss in Faith versus Fact. Dalton’s correct in saying that it’s too narrow to argue that these areas are compatible simply because much of science doesn’t challenge what’s in scripture (the Bible, for instance, says nothing about the Krebs Cycle or quantum mechanics). But what science does challenge is the existence of deities and the “truths” arrived at by religious “ways of knowing.” The questions we need to keep hammering on when we talk to religious people about their beliefs are twofold: “How do you know that?” and “How would you know if you were wrong”?
This all seems obvious to me, but it rankles those who want to be down with both science and the supernatural—having their faith and eating it, too. But merely pointing out this palpable discrepancy, as I’ve learned to my chagrin, is taboo, for even many atheists and skeptics bridle at criticizing people for beliefs that are both foolish and unevidenced.
Since this is Part I, I’ll look forward to other parts forthcoming. In the meantime, you can contribute to Dalton’s “Mr. Deity” and “The Way of the Mister” clips at his Patreon site.
Superb. Concise, clear, and focused. I look forward to the rest of the series.
You can pretty much boil the entire divide down to faith.
In religion, faith is the ultimate virtue; in science, faith is the one unforgivable sin.
You know who else values faith above all else? Confidence artists….
Cheers,
b&
Especially in Christianity (and especially evangelical Protestantism) where salvation is contingent on faith.
Muslims value submission above all, which is a separate can of venomous worms with sharp teeth.
sub
“How would you know if you were wrong” is what I say to hard core conspiracy theorists, being hard core it doesn’t work.
The lack of evidence for many conspiracy theories is often rationalized in a way comparable to the old grade-school joke
“Why do elephants paint their toe-nails [balls in some versions] red?”
“To hide in cherry trees.”
“Have you ever seen an elephant do that?”
“No”
“See, it works really well”.
Very good from Mr Deity. On the same subject I must report just seeing Richard Dawkins on the TV. Hard to believe maybe but he got about 5 minutes on GPS this Sunday morning. I think there to show his new book but no time to talk about that, I guess. A couple of notes: when asked about the fact that most all the republican candidates said they did not believe in evolution – he said first that evolution was not a belief, it was real/reality and to say it is not was just ignorance. He then said he did not think they were all ignorant, but were simply saying it because that is what their party wants to hear. He also said we need to stop calling evolution a theory because it is fact. Also said the best evidence today is molecular and explained that very briefly.
So it is possible to find tiny bits of intelligence on the tube but don’t blink or you will miss it.
5-stars!
Saw Mr. Dalton in person at Science seminar at Caltech in Pasadena a few years ago. Very entertaining and intelligent — if only any of the top-ranking Republican candidates for the Presidency were so bright rather than willfully ignorant, as with current front-runner Ben Carson.
The Humanist book club of which I’ve been a long-time member (11 years now) will be discussing Fact vs. Faith this afternoon.
My history buff self is glad that Dalton pointed out that the saying of Galileo “But it moves” is likely a legend (though one I would love to believe).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves
IMO Dalton’s best and crowning point is his final one about the serpent’s gift being knowledge.
When I was in Italy some years ago they had one of their lightning strikes, and I was stuck with no train back to where I was staying. After a couple of hours a train arrived, which was supposedly in service, and we boarded. Forty minutes or so of conflicting information, but no action, followed. When we had almost given up hope, the train finally headed off in the advertised direction. And the Italian gentlemen in front of me loudly proclaimed “Eppur si muove!”
Hmm … that should have been “gentleman”. It wasn’t a chorus.
That “how would you know if you were wrong?” question is what makes the religious go into “spiritual”-mode.
Suddenly their factual claims regarding the supernatural are blended in with the secular meaning of spirituality — that which involves morals, meaning, values, and feelings and expressions of awe. If YOU couldn’t imagine what would “make you wrong” regarding your love of science, beauty, or human rights, then THEY shouldn’t have to have an answer for your question either. Fair is fair, right?
Nope. Don’t let them get away with “spiritual”-mode. It’s a shrewd strategy which appears to fool even them — but it shouldn’t fool us.
Mr. Deity’s analysis of the incompatibility between science and religion was both lucid and concise, therefore accessible to people who have not thought about this topic. Still, we must ask how there can be religious scientists. They perform solid work during the week and then go to church on Sunday, seemingly sincerely accepting the incoherent nonsense. How can this be? I suspect it is largely due to the psychological conditioning into believing religious dogma that they suffered as youth. The pain in breaking away from religion is as difficult as a person suffering from OCD not checking every five minutes to assure that the stove has been turned off. To ease this cognitive dissonance they come up with all sorts of rationalizations that science and religion are compatible. I also suspect that most of them on occasion doubt these rationalizations. Religious scientists either suffer from some sort of split personality or deep psychic pain.
This is Part 1 but a few days ago Brian posted The God Distraction: Introduction. (For those who don’t want to miss any of the series.)
I don’t.