This blog's raison d'etre is to pull together disparate sites and views on the accommodation debate. What is the accommodation debate? Put simply, are science and religion compatible? Your answer to this question will go a long way to determining which side of the debate you lie. The side that views science and religion as compatible are somewhat derogatively termed accommodationists. The opposing side anti-accommodationists, or the new atheists. The later term is considered a put down often as it contrasts the so called new atheists with 'old atheists' who were/are considered to be cut from a finer cloth. The differences between new and old atheists is not so much philosophical, after all, if both don't believe in a deity there's not much to quibble about on that head, but political. New atheists are loud and proud and are happy to goad and belittle religious belief and unmerited, in their opinion, deference given it in society. John S. Wilkins, who is one of many internet denizens involved in the accommodation debate prefers to term new atheists as affirmative atheists. This term is not encumbered with the baggage associated with the new atheism sobriquet, but it seems we're stuck with the new atheism. Some so called new atheists have embraced the term and have written books to support new atheism*. New atheism then is more than anti-accommodationism, but on the subject they are roughly co-extensive. However, you'll have to take my word on that.
The accommodation debate does seem to have the air of two groups talking past each other. This seems to lead to exasperation between the opposing parties. The anti-accommodation group argue roughly that science as a means or method of obtaining knowledge about the world based on reason and evidence is incompatible with religion which makes knowledge claims about the world based on revelation, scripture and personal experience that is not subjected, nor could be subjected, to empirical testing. This form of incompatibility has been termed epistemic incompatibility. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, so epistemic incompatibility is an incompatibility of knowledge claims or methodology. A religious claim may be false, but there would be no way to determine this using religious methods, whereas a false claim in science can be shown to be false using scientific methodology. The accommodationists claim that religion and science are compatible because there are as a matter of fact many religious scientists or many religious people who accept scientific results and still believe in religious claims such as God existing and having a plan for them. This then is not a knowledge claim so much as claim that it is psychologically possible, and often evidenced, that people can find the findings of science and the claims of religion as compatible. This type of compatibility then is psychological compatibility. It is possible then that a person accepts that humans evolved from some common ancestor with all other life on the Earth and still holds that human beings have a special relationship with God and are part of some divine plan for example. The anti-accommodationists have stated that they do not deny psychological accommodation happens or that it is common. Here is why the groups seem to argue past each other. But if the anti-accommodationists accept that psychological accommodation occurs, why then do accommodationists bring up psychological compatibility as a refutation of epistemic incompatibility? In this post I'm not investigating the soundness of the epistemic incompatibility thesis nor contesting the psychological compatibility argument as the latter seems plainly obvious, every person holds views that are irrational or contradictory on some point. Given that the epistemic incompatibility thesis is correct, for the sake of argument, then a refutation of it is what is required. It is not relevant to the case at hand to point to another form of compatibility. That this happens might simply be attachment or loyalty to one's own side, refusal to consider the arguments of the anti-accommodationists, lack of insight into the different forms of compatibility/accommodation, or various other reasons, some less savoury than others.
If you've read this far, you'll no doubt have worked out which side of the debate I lean towards. I've tried to be fair in presenting a simplified version of the debate so that following posts can flesh it out or sharpen up terms and arguments. We all have our biases and I'll try to minimize mine, but I'd be a liar if I claimed I did not have any.
*Victor Stenger for example.
Hopefully this can be a sane, low-flame environment to actually get some clarification on this issue. If that happens, I think it will be a very worthwhile use of blog space.
ReplyDeleteI think you've captured a large part of the confusion here. As far as how to resolve it, I think the obvious questions are:
"What, precisely, does the accomodationist mean by 'compatible'?"
and
"What is the strategy for demonstrating that science and religion are compatible in this sense?"
There is another problem that accomodationists dwell on which has to do with the epistemic limitations of science. "There are," they say, "questions that science can't answer." But there are at least two distinct meanings to this question, and it's not clear which is intended. Is it meant that science can't answer certain questions because an attempt to answer such questions is, by definition, not science? Or is it meant that science, by its very nature, has a delimited scope of inquiry, and that certain important questions lie outside this?
If the former, then accomodationists run the risk of becoming another Discovery Institute, trying to impose or alter the definition of science to suit theological goals. If the latter, then accomodationists have to provide a convincing account of how to discriminate questions which merely have not yet been answered by science from questions which cannot in principle be answered by science.
Hope you don't mind the comment here, but I assume you'll clean it up if you do. Cheers.
Hi Daniel, comments are most welcome.
ReplyDeleteYou raise a good point about what people mean by the limits of science. Are they talking philosophically or do they just limit science by fiat? Part of the problem with the accommodation issue is what do we mean by science and religion? A lot turns on that question I think.
I am not sure why there does need to be a debate on two area of belief that rarely even cross each other other than the point that some scientists have religious beliefs and some hold atheistic beliefs. Science and religion are compatible only in as much as science is not controlled or confined to any one belief system.
ReplyDeleteIn observations this far it can be argued that Atheists (new old or indifferent) seem to want to take the position that science is exclusively atheist in some way. I have known many an atheist scientist who was quite inept with evidential data and many Christian and even Muslim scientist who have been excellent at dealing with evidential data.
I suppose the base of the discussion has little to do with religion what so ever but just another vehicle with which some atheists can abuse, ridicule and generally justify disrespectful positions. 'The justification of meanness' as I have witnessed at times.
Where science delves into tangible questions and creates measurable and consistent answers, religion delves into the more human side of existence - though they can at times accommodate each other in some sciences (Forensic anthropology/ F archeology/ sociology and even ancient variants of chemistry (Alchemy) the two schools of thought really are closely related other than, as I have said, through association.
One is a Faith based on many, many variables.
One is a science that was originally derived from the exploration of these variables - though science has changed quite a bit since those early days.
Perhaps I see no reason and accept no justification for any anti-respect type behaviour. This is where the progressive atheist movement has become no better and no worse than any other fundamentalist religion.
Perhaps the real question is - can atheists accommodate fundamentalism
just an add here - this is the 1+1 = 3 argument
ReplyDeleteRobert, thanks for your comments. Can you point out some links to back this up: "In observations this far it can be argued that Atheists (new old or indifferent) seem to want to take the position that science is exclusively atheist in some way"? I'm not sure atheists do want this. I certainly don't. Part of the accommodation debate centers around atheists calling for science promotion bodies not to endorse claims that science and religion are compatible but remain impartial.
ReplyDeleteHi Brian, this is from my discussions on a couple of Atheist strong message boards - some claim to be 'New Atheists' then somehow link it to Humanism, this was through a combination of links from Russell Blackford's blogs and even the odd participation in such blogs as well. I don't buy the humanist link as I am what is known as Christian Humanist (Darwin, evolutionary supporter) and the term does not equate with aggression of any kind. So my experiences are the basis of my position - despite reading some very good critical thinking articles associated with the sites - which at the moment I can't find the links to. I am a fiction writer so keeping links of this kind isn't something I do.
ReplyDeleteI agree science and religion are different fish in the same pond and you need to do the 1+1=3 questioning to understand the connections honestly.
Anthropology is a science and part of its scientific work is based on the religious understandings within cultures. The same can be said for Archeology as well - bring in the forensic elements of the modern research age then you get science and religion complimenting each other. some with one and one defined we get the appropriate answer.
But. If you are comparing physics with religion then there can be no complimenting, the two disciplines are literally worlds apart.
Some have claimed philosophy is a science, but it isn't by any scientific standards. Philosophy and religion compliment each other as both deal with contemplative approaches to issues. True, very different basis at times, but both use the same methodology to conclude arguments. So, if philosophy is to be considered a science, then religion can be said to be complimentary. These two are simple schools of thought that cross over each other on many critical, moral and ethical levels.
But if you look at higher maths, then we get the distancing again.
It then gets more complicated, well in my mind it does, which science and which religion? both ones in the sum need definition in order to give you the answer and perhaps a simple answer is really for the dreamers while the more complex and possibly real issues will evoke greater discussion and understanding.
Russell's site is at - http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/
I'm the crazy guy who uses his name.
There is Ophelia, but I don't discuss on this site -- way, way too anti for anything servicable to really be gained by me. Others maybe. http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/the-advancement-of-science-and-spirit/
And here are always interesting articles but it gets all very dodgy when you attempt discussion that is not atheist - http://www.ieet.org/
Though documentation is probably scarce, it is within actual discussion you find things that are often better avoided. I do try not to venture into an abusive state but tempers do fly on some of these sites. I am sure you know of them anyway.
Given that the epistemic incompatibility thesis is correct, for the sake of argument, then a refutation of it is what is required.
ReplyDeleteThat's a high get-over, Brian. Can we work on refining the "given" and see whether we need a refutation.
The argument from Epistemic Incompatiblility:
Science as a means or method of obtaining knowledge about the world based on reason and evidence is incompatible with religion which makes knowledge claims about the world based on revelation, scripture and personal experience that is not subjected, nor could be subjected, to empirical testing.
I suppose that the objection would actually be that religious entities make knowledge claims that contradict the knowledge claims of science. I suppose that a religious or philosophical entity making compatible knowledge claims would be unobjectionable?
Daniel's call for refinement of "compatible" is to the point. If the idea is "incommensurate" then that is probably tautologically true (no miracles in the lab) but unexceptional. The idea seems to be "mutually antagonistic" (argument from cats & dogs), which does not follow from mere incommensurability.
I think it is wrong to bracket off personal experience. Since we all agree that "mental events" are in principle causally reducible to basic physics, they should be admitted to the empirical realm as much as events at the center of the sun, which can likewise only be observed indirectly. (We all agree that "mental events" are related to other (empirical) events by (only) causal chains.)
Many anti-accomodationists seem to enjoy and are edified by reading/writing science fiction, so I suppose it is possible to bracket off as accomodateable certain texts which may contain incompatible assertions. If religious claims are seen as having psychological/cultural implications bracketed off from "engineering" decisions, is there still a compatibility problem?
The argument seems to assert that for structural reasons every religion is necessarily antagonistic to the scientific method, but that has not been shown. Could there never be a tasteful, humane, orderly, and generally beneficial religion that could be approved of? Is the problem that there is no such religion overwhelmingly popular just now?
In argument anti-accomodationists often retreat to invoking "most real-world religion" or "what ordinary people mean". Are we really just talking about the presently-existing church environment? Which would make this a political discussion, not a philosophical one.
Marshall:
ReplyDeleteThat's a high get-over, Brian. Can we work on refining the "given" and see whether we need a refutation.
I know that what I posted was quite loose and probably would not be endorsed by anti-accommodationists without quite a few caveats. I was a bit quick on presuming there was something to refute. I'll try to get something up soon that shows the views of a few of the anti-accomodationists.
The argument seems to assert that for structural reasons every religion is necessarily antagonistic to the scientific method, but that has not been shown I think this is due to how I've put the argument, not how those who see an incompatibility have put it.
Are we really just talking about the presently-existing church environment? Which would make this a political discussion, not a philosophical one. The political aspect of this debate is important. My opening post elided this unfortunately.
Hello all.
ReplyDeleteDaniel wrote:
"What, precisely, does the accomodationist mean by 'compatible'?"
I think the words compatible/incompatible are more often used by the incompatibilist side of this debate, so the onus is more on them to explain what they mean. And with respect to Brian, though he makes the important point that non-compatibilists are referring to epistemic and not psychological compatibility, I don't think his account of epistemic incompatibility is adequate.
The incompatibilist side generally does not argue that the claims of religions could not be subjected to empirical testing. Almost the contrary. The incompatibilist side generally argues that the claims of religions can be subjected to broadly the same kind of scientific-rational scrutiny as other claims about the world. That may not involve direct testing, but it is based to a large extent on scientific knowledge which has already been acquired by previous testing. The main assertion of incompatibilists is that there is no epistemic demarcation line between the sort of claims that can be scrutinised by science and those which are asserted by compatibilists to be immune from scientific scrutiny.
The most nuanced and best (in my opinion) explanation I've seen was by Russell Blackford:
http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2010/06/sciencereligion-compatibility-yet-again.html
I share Russell's views on this, though I myself am more reluctant to use the word "incompatible", precisely because it can be misleading if not accompanied by a nuanced explanation of what is meant. Russell wrote:
>As usual with accommodationists, there is no real understanding of what non-accommodationists actually say, which has its nuances. What we say isn't just "religion and science are incompatible", which is ambiguous, and could mean various things that are false. We do say that, but we go on to gloss what we mean by it.<
If I would fault Russell for something, it would be for implying that other incompatibilists have as nuanced a position as his.
P.S. What I described as "the main assertion" of incompatibilists, should have been called "a major assertion" of incompatibilists.
ReplyDeleteThe major part of any discussion is what we, ourselves bring to the table. Though I am one to think in certain disciplines their can be compatibility, in general there isn't because of what each area, in the loosest of terms, actually offers to people and the world.
ReplyDeleteOnly IDC would argue religions as a basis for science. The rest of the religious world is in step with science, so the formation of an argumentative position serves what?
This is a bit like two men with guns. Both know how to use them, understand their design and why they were created. While one decides he does not agree with the concept behind the weapons creation the other is making bullets. Both men share the philosophical position that killing isn't advantageous to them. Yet still one must have the bullets.
This analogy is quite loose and naturally very simplistic. And those who know me would understand I look at the argument behind the subject, not the subject itself. Also, I want to see how this will directly effect real, living people beyond the chest beating that can take place. Does the argument here serve a purpose, a purpose that benefits the majority, or it it like many theoretical discussions limited only to the privileged few.
Brian is you can clarify science and be specific on religion you might have a discussion that will bare fruit. There can be not one rule fits all here - their are just too many disciplines that actually use religion in its determinations.
P.P.S. The demarcation principle most often invoked by compatibilists is methodological naturalism (MN). A good refutation of arguments for MN was published recently. Follow the link from Taner Edis's blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2010/06/methodological-naturalism.html
methodological naturalism
ReplyDeletegoodness just cut and pasting hurts my head...
I had a long reply to this typed ... and then it got lost due to a lot of technical issues. Bleh.
ReplyDeleteSo, while I hate to do it, I'll refer you to a long blog post I wrote on the poverty of the incompatibilist position:
http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/the-poverty-of-the-incompatibilist-position/
And add three comments:
1) To me, the only interesting incompatibilist position is one that says that religion and science are inherently incompatible, so that the claim is: For all X, if X is a religion then X is incompatible with science. So some religions being incompatible with science is not interesting evidence, and any religion not being incompatible with science is enough to refute the claim.
2) Any sense of incompatibility that I can reduce to "That religion is wrong" is uninteresting. We won't argue over that sense of incompatible, but argue over which is right, which is something that happens internally in all fields and between fields all the time.
3) To me, it is obvious that any religion that accepts scientific fact is compatible with science. To me, this is the right way to do religion since almost all religions are more about morality and how to live your life than they are about strong investigations about things in the "natural" world. However, since not all things that science holds are facts -- there are things that are really just current suppositions -- this will still mean that religion may not accept everything science says. But, again, it's not a problem unless it's scientific fact. For example, that evolution occurs -- ie change over time -- is a scientific fact. That there are no gods is not, and I'd even claim it is not a scientific fact that that change over time occurred with no intelligent intervention.
the anti position can be simply put as someone/entity/organization who is against religion not matter what it does. The same goes for the pro position, the supporters are believers that religion is what it claims.
ReplyDeleteStep away from you personal systems - this include suppressed hatred and vengeful attitudes. I, on a personal level, read, see and experience the vengeful and hurtfulness by anti groups, especially the anti - religious groups.
Science and religion are compatible in the sense that ones is a method of discovering the world of the physical and the other the exploration of the spiritual. Religion does not explain science and science does not explain religion. They only become incompatible when they try to describe each other.
This is like a farmer trying to describe seasonal crop rotations to a physicist at CERN.
It is perhaps time the Atheist stance be stated clearly as it is clear in some of the discussions I have seen, it isn't science being compatible with religion actually being discussed; it is more a shrouded Atheisms compatibility with religion
Again it is also clear amongst some of the rhetoric that the anti camp will not directly specify which science. Many religions and evolutionary science are in agreeance. And as I have said Anthropology and most religions are also in an agreeable shared position. Except for fundamentalist Christians the Christian faith is also in agreeance with modern physics. So, where are the specifics in the argument.
Or, is this like a number of discussions I have seen of late where it is only a cloak over the real discussion taking place? I do hope it is not.
Hi guys, thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteRichardW: The incompatibilist side generally does not argue that the claims of religions could not be subjected to empirical testing. Almost the contrary. The incompatibilist side generally argues that the claims of religions can be subjected to broadly the same kind of scientific-rational scrutiny as other claims about the world I'm not sure I'm following you Richard. I think what you say is true, but I understand the argument that science has method X (where X might be distinct for different sciences) to determine knowledge in some manner and religion has no method, but asserts that it has knowledge. There in lies the incompatibility. However, it might be that I agree with what you say, but haven't joined the dots to what follows logically. You're right about MN being a demarcation applied by compatibilists. I'd forgotten about that when I put up this first post.
Robert: Religion does not explain science and science does not explain religion. They only become incompatible when they try to describe each other. This sounds a bit like NOMA. Is that what you mean?
@Brian: great summary of the debate. Small style quibble: could you use a few more paragraph brakes to make it a little more easy to read?
ReplyDelete@Robert N Stephenson:
ReplyDelete"Science and religion are compatible in the sense that ones is a method of discovering the world of the physical and the other the exploration of the spiritual."
But this already presupposes that there is a spiritual world that is separate from the physical world. Yet all spiritual experiences happen in the brain, which is a decidedly physical object. So they can't be separate.
One possible objection could be that the spiritual doesn't need brains to operate. But this is an unsupported assumption. Accepting this assumption is not compatible with scientific principles.
"Religion does not explain science and science does not explain religion. They only become incompatible when they try to describe each other."
So you dispute that science can investigate what brain processes lead to religious or spiritual experiences? That science can find the psychological and sociological factors that promote religiosity? That science can find the historical origins of the various religious ideas? Many scientists would greatly disagree with you that science can't say anything about religion. Science is actually appears to be making a lot of progress in explaining religion.
Are you also saying that religion can't say anything about how people should deal with the physical world? Many religious people will just as greatly disagree with you on this point as well.
By the way, writing this, I think too much attention is given to the role of evolution in the compatibility wars. Just accepting evolution does not mean that you have fully integrated science and religion. In my opinion, the real front-line lies in neurology and neuro-psychology. Will religious scientists accept it when science rejects the existence of a soul, and can convincingly explain where religious experiences come from?
The integration of evolutionary science into religion is a huge step and does start at the foundation of most systems of belief. Evolutionary science is not just single faceted.
ReplyDeleteThere are anti-positions taken simply because we are talking about religion. Any talk of religion is some areas get immediate anti-attention and this anti-attention is pre determined and steadfast. I tend to view this in the same light as the fundamentalist or literalist in a religious faith. There can be no discussion when the anti-camp has preexisting prejudices. How to over come this is something even harder than the discussion itself.
To allow religion a place at all goes against strong Atheist beliefs, so the anti group will never, regardless of development, accept anything to do with religion, though religion has made great steps in regards to science.
Leave out Creationists here - these people are often used as the norm in this type of discussion, when in fact they are a growing minority amongst Christians and other religions.
My wife is a strong Christian who also happens to be a scientist in DNA forensics. Her whole life is integrated with faith and science and there are no issues in her life with science whatsoever - the same for me and for most (not all) people in the church I attend.
I have to question the underlying motive of the anti-side of this debate, argument or discussion. Though science may be able to work with religious beliefs it is becoming increasingly clear Atheists don't want this to happen.
DEEN, science has already discovered, or suspect it has discovered the GOD gene, or something that creates the need for belief and faith. But that gene, like all genes has to be triggered - that is what is unknown. Also science has also come to understand the benefits of belief and faith in the individual (though a split debate exists there) and in fact modern phsychiatry explores the existence and enforcement of positive belief structures. It is highly unlikely that the soul will be discovered - you are talking about what makes life, life. We know it involves electrical currents in one aspect, and cellular division in another. But we aren't even close to working out why? We don't even know how yet.
Do I give credit to God for this... not really though there could be something behind it one day... I do give credit to some pretty amazing biology though.
"To allow religion a place at all goes against strong Atheist beliefs"
ReplyDeleteExcuse me? Are you saying that strong atheists as a rule don't support freedom of religion? Surely you have some evidence to back up such a serious accusation? And you call atheists prejudiced...
I think the words compatible/incompatible are more often used by the incompatibilist side of this debate, so the onus is more on them to explain what they mean.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree. The whole thing started when the NAS made a press release announcing that the official position of the NAS is that faith and science are compatible. URL: http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Compatibility.html
Templeton is a little more oblique about making such statements, but obviously that's the position they're pushing for.
At the risk of saying "they started it," it really is the compatibilists who need to say what it means to be compatible. Besides the fact of priority, there's also a pragmatic reason: if accomodationists (compatibilism is technically a materialistic approach to resolving the hard problem of consciousness) don't tell us what they mean by "compatible," then any definition we give will be wrong somehow. That's exactly the pattern already established in debates about the reality of God, the historicity of the Jesus narrative, etc. Atheists just don't understand (presumably if we did, we wouldn't be atheists).
So we're blinkered and beknighted and need you guys to set us straight -- in what sense is science compatible with faith?
Daniel wrote:
ReplyDelete>I'm not sure I agree. The whole thing started when the NAS made a press release announcing that the official position of the NAS is that faith and science are compatible. URL: http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Compatibility.html<
Good point. I'd forgotten that the NAS used the word "compatibility", and in a heading no less.