The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[wenglund]

Science can conflict WITH ITSELF (not other things with it, that's a separate issue) if it makes claims about its own methods. Since it doesn't do that, then there's no conflict at least at that level. Simple.

This is FROM OUTSIDE science. If scientific DISCOVERY (not the methods themselves) indicate that we come from other primates, then to say we don't conflicts with science in a sense in which I'm NOT speaking of here (IOW, I'm NOT addressing the "results of science" conflict in this thread).

once again, science doesn't make claims about itself and if it did they (the claims) would NOT be claims about the empirical only because SCIENCE ISN'T EMPIRICAL ITSELF. (Ideas are not empirical, brother, and science is an idea or a method) I mean... do I really need to tell you this, man? Geez!

I was simply pointing out what I was NOT talking about but can still conflict with scientific conclusions. Again, I'm NOT speaking of the conclusions science arrives at though that is another aspect in which religion may or may not conflict with.

Please, man, next time read carefully what I'm saying because you are getting nothing. Think about what you're reading and don't make me connect the dots for you when it's so simple you can do it if you make the effort.

Buddy, for the love of Pete. Clue in. Your Jello-y arguments are running skater-brained and incoherently this way and that. Please put them in the cognative fridge for awhile and let them set up. Otherwise, you are just going to continue to make an argumentational mess of things.

And, while you are working on firming things up, ask yourself what value you hope you and others might derive from this thread? If you are hard pressed to come up with an reasonable answer, then perhaps it might be best to save serving up your "Jello" until you do have an reasonable answer.

Just a suggestion to and from a friend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Franktalk]

Science can conflict WITH ITSELF (not other things with it, that's a separate issue) if it makes claims about its own methods. Since it doesn't do that, then there's no conflict at least at that level. Simple.

This is part of a reply to another person.

I was going to leave you alone but now I find I can not. You need to find out that almost everything you say is bogus. In my study of evolution I also studied population genetics. I needed to see if the models made sense and matched what molecular biology has discovered in the last ten years or so. For some reason you think that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. That attitude of yours does not serve you well at all. Here are some comments I wrote and some data I gathered.

Start

I have spent some time doing some research into population genetics. The purpose of that research was to determine if Sanford was correct in his assessment of population genetics. To be honest with you I think that Sanford was kind to the field of study and its’ developers.

To begin I had to have an independent history of population genetics history and “accomplishments”. For this I used:

Population Genetics

Written by R.L. Millstein and R.A. Skipper Jr.

This was an essay written for Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology, edited by D. Hull and M. Ruse, Cambridge University Press

The essay focused on population genetics theory.

I learned that the core mathematics in population genetics is based on the conclusions of Gregor Mendel’s experiments. On top of that modifiers are added to adjust the output of the equations to allow evolution and other variables to affect the mix of output concentrations. From a model point of view this is a train wreck. The output is modified directly and the processes (caused) are not in the base structure of the math. So using 20-20 hindsight a quick analysis of the mathematical structure of population genetics led Millstein and Skipper to conclude:

“Since 1960, applications of molecular techniques to evolutionary problems has led to revisions in the interpretation of some of the basic assumptions of population genetics theory as well as of evolution at the molecular level. Moreover, advances in microbiology and developmental biology have led to challenges to the explanatory scope of population genetics.”

That is a nice way of saying the math does not match what we see in the lab. Anyway, I would recommend this essay to anyone who wishes to learn more about the mathematical basis of population genetics. Here are a couple more quotes from Millstein and Skipper:

“The problem in distingishing selection from drift arises at least in part as a result of ambiguities in the models of population genetics.”

“We should emphasize that the claim here is that the concepts of natural selection and random genetic drift can be distinguished from one another, and that distinction should be based on the kinds of processes they are, and not on the kinds of outcomes, as a literal interpretation of the models would suggest.”

Having read this essay and a few other papers describing the models used in population genetics I moved along to the application of the models. I came across this paper:

The Limits of Theoretical Population Genetics

By J. Wakeley (Genetics, vol 169, Jan 2005)

Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University

I found this on genetics.org linked from nih.gov

Wakeley wrote a critical analysis of the use of the population genetics model. I have included a couple of his comments for you to get a feel for Wakeley’s conclusions

“Arguably of more importance, theoretical population genetics underlies our knowledge of within-species variation across the globe and for all kinds of life. In light of its many incarnations and befitting its ties to evolutionary biology, the limits of theoretical population genetics are recognised to be changing over time, with a number of new paths to follow. Stepping into this future, it will be important to develop new approximations that reflect new data and not to let well accepted models diminish the possibilities.”

“Taking this narrow view precludes the application of theoretical population genetics to studies of long-term evolutionary phenomena. This instead, is the purview of evolutionary theory.”

“Questions concerning the fixation or loss of alleles from the population or, more generally, questions about the behavior of alleles in low copy number are outside the boundaries of classical, infinite-population-size theory.”

But what really got my jaw to drop was when a standard diffusion model with additional restrictions turned into a tool to analyse intraspecies data.

“Returning to the ubiguity of the standard diffusion approximation, the addition of a single assumption, that the sample size N is constant, so that n/D -> 0, as D tends to infinity (roughly: n <<D) yields coalescent theory. Coalescent theory describes the genetic ancesstry of a sample and provides the tools for the analysis of intraspecies molecular data.”

So let me get this straight, you take a model designed for drift and natural selection within a species, then further restrict the variables and it magically models intraspecies changes. Nice trick.

The last article I want to bring to your attention is:

Wayward Modeling: Population Genetics and Natural Selection

By B. Glymour

Philosophy of Science, 73 (Oct 2006) p 369 – 389

Mr. Glymour rightly argues for a rewrite of population genetics models based on causation. Here is his general assessment of the current models:

“More, the descriptive apparatus of population genetics forces us to address a host of seriously intractable conceptual problems that otherwise do not arise at all. I think the reasons for these limitations are simple: population genetics models evolving populations with the wrong variables related by the wrong equations employing the wrong kinds of parameters.”

The models were old in 1960. I have to ask the question, why are we still using these models?

End

It is easy to find wide disagreement in the field of evolutionary theory. The core tools used in the field are almost worthless. I have read dozens of books and thousands of articles on this subject. I have done my homework yet you imply I have not. You should stop acting like you know what you are talking about.

Is this the science you wish to accept as the best answer to man's questions? Science is just like most things that man does. It is totally controlled by agendas of the people doing the science. If you want to find out what really is going on you must read all kinds of sources and sort out the real data from the spin.

[subgenius]

I'm speaking of certain religious claims, not about all religious claims. Please check other comments I've written here where I explain further. Don't make me explain it all over again!

trust me, i wont make you do anything.

(Please realize first that I'm speaking more about the methodologies and NOT about claims themselves. I use claims to explain the point but my point is about methods, not claims) No, but I am saying that while the methodology of science excludes us from accepting explanations with no regard to parsimony and falsifiability, religion doesn't. I'm saying this produces not only a difference but a conflict.

i suppose we can all "say" anything, but i have yet to read any of your support for such a conflict...only support for the "difference".

Once again, I'm speaking of a part of science that includes parsimony and falsifiability, NOT about physical methods exactly.

i believe you are incorrect in the assumption that spirituality does not provide for parsimony nor "falsifiability", in fact spirituality requires such methodologies(observation and/or physical experiments) in order for a belief to become true and thus become knowledge. Action is definitely a physical experiment and action is critical to spirituality.

They are not enough to establish that a physical God exists. That's what I'm saying.

nice backpedal....suddenly you insert "physical" before God....before you put, simply, God exists...not physical God exists...are you now proposing framing your argument to only that which is "physical"? are you trying to propose that the conflict of the spiritual world and physical world is difficult for the physical world???

(when asked what is 2+2 equals to and shown that 4 is the answer)

"What do you mean by 4? Your 4 or my 4?"

The best any rational being would recognize.

a rational being? pretty broad descriptor there. Let me rephrase my original notion with your statement.....the best any spiritual being would recognize OR the best any scientific being would recognize?

see the absurdity of your proposition yet?

...

Balderdash! A more incoherent proposition i have yet to read. I am sure you have a sincere inquiry somewhere in there, but it seems as though you are simply perpetuating the fallacy that a "conflict" exists, when you have yet to establish, let alone prove, that any conflict exists - in methodology or otherwise.

[elguanteloko]

Buddy, for the love of Pete. Clue in. Your Jello-y arguments are running skater-brained and incoherently this way and that. Please put them in the cognative fridge for awhile and let them set up. Otherwise, you are just going to continue to make an argumentational mess of things.

And, while you are working on firming things up, ask yourself what value you hope you and others might derive from this thread? If you are hard pressed to come up with an reasonable answer, then perhaps it might be best to save serving up your "Jello" until you do have an reasonable answer.

Just a suggestion to and from a friend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's not my fault you didn't get it the first time.You asked about falsifiability (which is something very specific) and then you extrapolated that to "science", which was your first mistake. You then went on to misinterpret self-referential claims ("science to itself" part) to mean conflict with anything else.

Edited August 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

i suppose we can all "say" anything, but i have yet to read any of your support for such a conflict...only support for the "difference".

There's a difference between physics and biology but no conflict. There's a difference between history and physics and biology but no conflict. There's a difference between science and religion AND a conflict. Science, through its methods, can't accept God's bodily existence (or any existence of a Christian God, really), global literal flood, literal Adam and Eve, etc at least not yet, but religion can. Those things are within the purview of science (so this conflict isn't like the difference between physics and biology and the others I mentioned) not "outside" it as many people here have claimed. I'm going to be very sorry if you don't see how that is a conflict. Conflict: "I accept God exists" and "I don't accept God exists" when "God exists" is within the purview of both areas and their methodologies take them to those conclusions. Difference (and no conflict): "I accept God exists" and "I accept dogs exist" as there is a difference between different areas of science or of mathematics.

i believe you are incorrect in the assumption that spirituality does not provide for parsimony nor "falsifiability", in fact spirituality requires such methodologies(observation and/or physical experiments) in order for a belief to become true and thus become knowledge. Action is definitely a physical experiment and action is critical to spirituality.

"Action is definitely a physical experiment and action is critical to spirituality"? Some actions are experiments and some experiments are proper experiments. You want to speak of "proper experiments" here not actions. Anyways, I don't know if you are LDS or not but I would be very interested in knowing how you think falsifiability and parsimony work in religion in any reliable way and, if they work pretty reliable... why not test them scientifically?

I like what cinepro posted here:

Question: What do they call alternative medicine that works?

Answer: "Medicine"

This gives the idea that there shouldn't be a difference between alternative medicine and scientific medicine if it works. Does religion reliable work through falsification and proper experimentation? I'm interested in what you have to say in this respect.

nice backpedal....suddenly you insert "physical" before God....before you put, simply, God exists...not physical God exists...are you now proposing framing your argument to only that which is "physical"? are you trying to propose that the conflict of the spiritual world and physical world is difficult for the physical world???

That's not backpedal. I already told you that I use conclusions of science and of religion to illustrate how the methodologies are in conflict. "Physical God" is in conflict in science IN THE SAME AREA OF SCIENCE that saying "God exists". The point is the same and that point is that this is an un-parsimonious, unnecessary explanation for events and things. From this idea all of the other conflicts in science arise.

a rational being? pretty broad descriptor there. Let me rephrase my original notion with your statement.....the best any spiritual being would recognize OR the best any scientific being would recognize?

see the absurdity of your proposition yet?

"Rational beings" includes "spiritual beings" as long as they can use reason. Ever read Kant?

Edited August 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Deborah]

As I said once before if no one is "getting it" the problem must be with the person trying to make the point.

[elguanteloko]

As I said once before if no one is "getting it" the problem must be with the person trying to make the point.

I admit what I've been saying requires a certain amount of knowledge in the philosophy of science. The problem is some people here think thinking is easy or that they can alone figure it out without ever reading on the subject. There haven't been 2500 years of western philosophy for no reason, you guys!

Edited August 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

No what you have been saying requires an extraordinary suspension of critical thinking. The varied people who have responded have degrees, they are knowlegeable, and they quite adept at critical thinking. While we know thinking for you is hard, and given the evidence very hard, articulation must be almost impossible.

Wenglund is right, you have an amorphous mass of nothing that like jello offers no real value beyond filling up the stomach of the internet. Your vague, poorly organized posts do not show a knowledge of any type of philosophy and reflect little or no knowledge of science and its different philosophies. Instead of telling people they don't get what you are trying to write, why not figure out what you are trying to write first.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Jeff K.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Only to the limited extent that religion makes testable claims, but then the reverse is true of science when it makes untestable claims.

IE. Steven Hawking is a very smart man. When he makes testable claims about the universe, it is a good idea to pay close attention to what he says. Then devise tests to confirm or reject that claim. However when he makes untestable claims like "There is no God" then no one has been able to make a falsifiable test to confirm or deny the existance of God.

Edited August 2, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

Only to the limited extent that religion makes testable claims, but then the reverse is true of science when it makes untestable claims.

IE. Steven Hawking is a very smart man. When he makes testable claims about the universe, it is a good idea to pay close attention to what he says. Then devise tests to confirm or reject that claim. However when he makes untestable claims like "There is no God" then no one has been able to make a falsifiable test to confirm or deny the existance of God.

TSS, do you know what parsimony is? I've been talking all along about this and you seem to not even take it into consideration. The problem with religious claims is not merely that science can't test (at least now) for God's body but that religious says it does exist without any proper justification. Science (or scientists, that is), I don't know if you know this or not, proposes a ton of explanations for certain events. Right off the bat, it discriminates between theories based on criteria it uses BEFORE trying to test claims. Should we go on and test whether Neptune's core caused grandma's cancer? No, because that's a very non-parsimonious explanation. It hasn't tested Neptune's core but it doesn't need to for now since there's no reason to go in that route. Science isn't merely about testing empirical claims, there's MUCH more behind it which falls within the philosophy of science.

To say that scientific methodology only tests empirical claims is to misunderstand science almost completely. What you are describing is a science based on verifiability that is now obsolete.

I'll repost here what I wrote to another user: "There's a difference between physics and biology but no conflict. There's a difference between history and physics and biology but no conflict. There's a difference between science and religion AND a conflict. Science, through its methods, can't accept God's bodily existence (or any existence of a Christian God, really), global literal flood, literal Adam and Eve, etc at least not yet, but religion can. Those things are within the purview of science (so this conflict isn't like the difference between physics and biology and the others I mentioned) not "outside" it as many people here have claimed. Conflict: "I accept God exists" and "I don't accept God exists" when "God exists" is within the purview of both areas and their methodologies take them to those conclusions. Difference (and no conflict): "I accept God exists" and "I accept dogs exist" as there is a difference between different areas of science or of mathematics."

Edited August 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Yep. However the most simple explanation is not always the correct one. Particularly when talking about the often illogical actions of humans or Gods.

When making testable claims about the natural world/universe then I'm fine with the Parsimony(with a few notable exceptions). However that law is of limited value outside of those confines.

See Supernatural: "Pertaining to God".

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

Yep. However the most simple explanation is not always the correct one. Particularly when talking about the often illogical actions of humans or Gods.

Parsimony never says which is the correct explanation but which is more likely to be the correct one. You can't, however, do better. If you can, please tell me how and I'll listen.

When making testable claims about the natural world/universe then I'm fine with the Parsimony(with a few notable exceptions). However that law is of limited value outside of those confines.

...so, why shouldn't we apply principles like parsimony to God and religious claims? You have no idea how much I hear this claim that somehow religious objects of belief are 'outside' of rationality or somehow immune to its understanding. So, why shouldn't they be applied the same principles we apply to everything else in existence? I personally have tried to think of a reason (I debate atheists, too, in favor of religion sometimes) but can't find it. What do you think?

BTW, it's always a pleasure to talk to you here.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

The law of parsimony or Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor:

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

Fortunately or unfortunately parsimoney has little to do with the actions of humans or Gods.

Ps. What I mean by that is that human actions are simply not a cause and effect relationship. They can be and often ar very circuitus. Say I find someone in a deep jungle environment that has never heard of the law or lawyers. Also say I without provocation come up and hit him in the nose. Now he can do one(or more) things in return. He can ask me why, he can run away, he can hit me back, he may even put a spear through me. Who really knows whay he chooses any of them? He may have just had a fight with his wife; However it is highly unlikely that he will sue me in court.

I always enjoy talking to you, even when we disagree.

Edited August 2, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

It's not my fault you didn't get it the first time.You asked about falsifiability (which is something very specific) and then you extrapolated that to "science", which was your first mistake. You then went on to misinterpret self-referential claims ("science to itself" part) to mean conflict with anything else.

Whatever. Enjoy your runny Jello.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

wow, I liked this!

Yeah, if I said the same thing you would have hated it!

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

The law of parsimony or Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor:

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

Fortunately or unfortunately parsimoney has little to do with the actions of humans or Gods.

Ps. What I mean by that is that human actions are simply not a cause and effect relationship. They can be and often ar very circuitus. Say I find someone in a deep jungle environment that has never heard of the law or lawyers. Also say I without provocation come up and hit him in the nose. Now he can do one(or more) things in return. He can ask me why, he can run away, he can hit me back, he may even put a spear through me. Who really knows whay he chooses any of them? He may have just had a fight with his wife; However it is highly unlikely that he will sue me in court.

I always enjoy talking to you, even when we disagree.

Well, that's a weird example. But that we don't know what the actual explanation is for an event has nothing to do with parsimony. Again, parsimony doesn't say or indicate which explanation is the correct one but which is the most likely to be the case and why. Even in this strange example we can discriminate between better and worse explanations. This isn't a case in which parsimony doesn't work.

I had something completely different in mind like, why explain anything with God? Why assume God exists? Why assume God has a body? Why assume God loves us? Why assume God created the universe? Why assume prayer works? Why.... etc. It seems extremely strange to me that a person may realize he is applying these principles in science but he makes a special exception for this type of religious claims.

[elguanteloko]

Yeah, if I said the same thing you would have hated it!

yeah, I probably would have because I hate you.

[mfbukowski]

yeah, I probably would have because I hate you.

Harumph!

[mfbukowski]

Senor elguanteloko

Yes, and the language that describes everything, including religion, is like science, in that it breaks down & categorizes that which isn't separate to give us a sense of understanding.

When religious parables are interpretted literally, they conflict with science.

When religious parables are interpreted as spiritual (emotional) motivation, there is no conflict.

In fact, spirituality (emotional drive) & science (intellectual drive) can make more progress together, than separately.

wow, I liked this!

Seriously boss, why did you like this? It's what I thought we were arguing about. She just put it better than I did.

If you are willing to see science as a "parable" too, we would be pretty close to being on the same page. I would probably call these subjective parables and objective parables - does that help with the translation?

Edited August 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

Frank, you need to study what science is better. Science isn't a hard block as your caricature presents it to be. Sorry.

When you wrap your mind around the concept of "What seems to work best" you will understand science more competently.That concept never talks about "Truth" or anything of the sort. The only people who think science is a dogma are dogmatists who don't accept science because they don't understand it.

As I read this thread, it certainly seems evident that antagonism towards "science" is inversely proportional to the degree of understanding one has for how it actually works.

[wenglund]

As I read this thread, it certainly seems evident that antagonism towards "science" is inversely proportional to the degree of understanding one has for how it actually works.

Who here is antagonistic towards science?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[shalamabobbi]

Well, that's a weird example. But that we don't know what the actual explanation is for an event has nothing to do with parsimony. Again, parsimony doesn't say or indicate which explanation is the correct one but which is the most likely to be the case and why.

I don't think it even states which is most likely.

In science we choose the simplest explanation that covers the phenomenon. The reality behind the phenomenon always lies out of reach in the realm of metaphysics which science doesn't address.

For example mathematically we can consider the earth as the center or origin which makes sense when describing the trajectory of a space craft leaving earth for a distant planet. But we would move the origin to the sun when choosing to describe the motion of planets in their orbits. But either origin could be made to work in the other example. It just isn't as clean.

When you try to apply this to God it is as though you are trying to restrict the consideration to a very particular example, such as natives attributing an act of nature to God, etc.

When Oliver Cowdery witnesses John the Baptist what is most parsimonious from his perspective? It may not be the same as what is most parsimonious from yours..

Which takes us to blarsen's excellent post which you didn't address..

[elguanteloko]

Senor elguanteloko

Seriously boss, why did you like this? It's what I thought we were arguing about. She just put it better than I did.

If you are willing to see science as a "parable" too, we would be pretty close to being on the same page. I would probably call these subjective parables and objective parables - does that help with the translation?

Calling science a "parable" and making it as poetic as you want has always been fine with me, mf. However, when one loses ground and starts to relativize science in a way it clearly isn't, then that's a problem. I liked what she wrote because I also think emotions play a central role not only in science but also in being rational in general but that doesn't happen in the way I've seen you use them. I also don't agree with your view of objectivity and other stuff I've made clear to you before.

[elguanteloko]

I don't think it even states which is most likely.

In science we choose the simplest explanation that covers the phenomenon. The reality behind the phenomenon always lies out of reach in the realm of metaphysics which science doesn't address.

For example mathematically we can consider the earth as the center or origin which makes sense when describing the trajectory of a space craft leaving earth for a distant planet. But we would move the origin to the sun when choosing to describe the motion of planets in their orbits. But either origin could be made to work in the other example. It just isn't as clean.

When you try to apply this to God it is as though you are trying to restrict the consideration to a very particular example, such as natives attributing an act of nature to God, etc.

When Oliver Cowdery witnesses John the Baptist what is most parsimonious from his perspective? It may not be the same as what is most parsimonious from yours..

Which takes us to blarsen's excellent post which you didn't address..

Please read what I've been writing here. You are completely missing the point. I also didn't answer to blarsen's post because I felt others were saying similar stuff to what he was saying I had already addressed. He thinks I'm talking about the "empirical" part of science and that's why he missed the point, too. Parsimony isn't empirical or about the empirical. I often use examples of empirical claims made by religion to show the conflict IN METHODOLOGY, not really in their conclusions.

Edited August 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[shalamabobbi]

Parsimony isn't empirical or about the empirical.

Oh its not?..

And I didn't come here to post. I was redirected here as the result of googling the definition of "pontification"..

Check the urban dictionary's definition as that one is the most apropos.

I often use examples of empirical claims made by religion to show the conflict IN METHODOLOGY, not really in their conclusions.

And I got that too.

No one is arguing that the methodologies aren't different and hence "in conflict", even though the results could in principal be the same. Hence the existence of two different entities: science and religion. And to repeat what others have already asked,.. "So?"..

What you seem to be missing is the same as what MP, Honoretheos, Xander all miss. Religion is testimony based. It is testimony based because it is experienced at the level of the individual. It cannot be subjected to the objective procedure of science because not everyone can replicate the experiment. There are conditions placed upon the would be recipients.

Prayer explored in this manner will not work because God is not a uniform, homogenous force like gravity that must react the same to all stimuli. And He certainly wouldn't respond to being tested in this manner.

So parsimony doesn't apply to a comparison of the methodologies. Neither does it apply to the explanations as what is accepted by separate individuals is different.