Dragon
Senior Member
- Sep 16, 2011
- 5,481
- 588
- 48
Once again, it comes down to what sort of statement is being made on the basis of religion.
Are there statements that can be made on the basis of religion, for which science can offer no counter? Absolutely. These include, most obviously, statements of value (with one caveat; see below). Science is a poor tool for answering questions of value, which include moral assertions and ideas about life's meaning and purpose. This is just not the sort of factual, operational claim that scientific method is designed for. And there are other religious statements as well, mystical visions, or myth (properly understood as metaphor) which are similarly outside scientific competence. Not only can science not refute any of these things, it can't even TRY to do so.
The problem between science and religion arises in every case when religion makes statements, not of morality, mysticism, or myth, but of fact. And by "fact" I mean some assertion that we can use our senses and/or our instruments to verify one way or the other. A good example was the Catholic Church's position in the time of Galileo that the sun orbited the earth rather than vice-versa. Another example is creationism -- not the rather nebulous claim that "God created the Earth," but the more precise claim that he did so at a fixed date a few thousand years ago, with an unchanging mix of species, at the end of which he created a single male human being, later creating a female out of a part of his body, and we are all descended from this pair who lived some 6,000 years ago. Much of that is disprovable, and has been proven wrong.
Science is not the perfect tool for all knowledge of every sort about everything. In reality, it's a tool of fairly narrow focus and compass. Not only the proper subject matter of religion, but also aesthetics, law, public and civic morality, all of these are outside the direct competence of science. The only way in which science can even contribute is to the extent that factual information can provide necessary input. That can also touch on religious ideas even within the proper sphere of religion to a degree. For example, if a religious teaching holds that homosexuality should be condemned because it is "unnatural," an examination of the behavior of both human beings and other animals can show that there is nothing "unnatural" about homosexuality, and so this does not provide a reason for condemning it.
But while science is a tool of fairly narrow focus and compass, within that focus and compass it reigns supreme. We have no other method for answering questions of fact about observable reality that can compare with it. And so, while religion does indeed have a proper sphere, outside the sphere of science, when it remains within that sphere religion never, ever conflicts with science. And that means that when such a conflict does arise, it happens because religion has trespassed into science's domain -- and will, inevitably, lose.
Are there statements that can be made on the basis of religion, for which science can offer no counter? Absolutely. These include, most obviously, statements of value (with one caveat; see below). Science is a poor tool for answering questions of value, which include moral assertions and ideas about life's meaning and purpose. This is just not the sort of factual, operational claim that scientific method is designed for. And there are other religious statements as well, mystical visions, or myth (properly understood as metaphor) which are similarly outside scientific competence. Not only can science not refute any of these things, it can't even TRY to do so.
The problem between science and religion arises in every case when religion makes statements, not of morality, mysticism, or myth, but of fact. And by "fact" I mean some assertion that we can use our senses and/or our instruments to verify one way or the other. A good example was the Catholic Church's position in the time of Galileo that the sun orbited the earth rather than vice-versa. Another example is creationism -- not the rather nebulous claim that "God created the Earth," but the more precise claim that he did so at a fixed date a few thousand years ago, with an unchanging mix of species, at the end of which he created a single male human being, later creating a female out of a part of his body, and we are all descended from this pair who lived some 6,000 years ago. Much of that is disprovable, and has been proven wrong.
Science is not the perfect tool for all knowledge of every sort about everything. In reality, it's a tool of fairly narrow focus and compass. Not only the proper subject matter of religion, but also aesthetics, law, public and civic morality, all of these are outside the direct competence of science. The only way in which science can even contribute is to the extent that factual information can provide necessary input. That can also touch on religious ideas even within the proper sphere of religion to a degree. For example, if a religious teaching holds that homosexuality should be condemned because it is "unnatural," an examination of the behavior of both human beings and other animals can show that there is nothing "unnatural" about homosexuality, and so this does not provide a reason for condemning it.
But while science is a tool of fairly narrow focus and compass, within that focus and compass it reigns supreme. We have no other method for answering questions of fact about observable reality that can compare with it. And so, while religion does indeed have a proper sphere, outside the sphere of science, when it remains within that sphere religion never, ever conflicts with science. And that means that when such a conflict does arise, it happens because religion has trespassed into science's domain -- and will, inevitably, lose.