"Science and Religion are Philosophical Viewpoints"

[McC]

I'm debating a friend of mine with regard to religion. He's not a fundie, and arguments used to debunk fundies aren't going to be particularly helpful to me here. He's simply a "generic" Christian (i.e. the kind who has cherry-picked his beliefs to form his own sort of 'moderate' religion). The prompt for this debate was the article Athiesm is a Liberating World View.

The specific points he brings up are the following, here paraphrased since I haven't obtained his permission to re-post his own words:
Science and religion are both complementary philosophical viewpoints, each with their own rules.
Religion is not the cause of wars, but rather an excuse used by those in power to rally the public to war. A knife is not the cause of evil; it's how it's used.
The evidence for religious claims does exist, but it's thrown out.

My rebuttals so far, summarized:
Science is a method for drawing conclusions based on evidence; religion is a pre-defined set of conclusions. The conflict between a religious viewpoint and a scientific viewpoint must, in a rational world, necessarily defer to the science (making religion science's "bitch" as Darth Wong once said). On the issue of compartmentalizing the two, there are also people with multiple personality disorders -- do we consider them mentally healthy? Finally, the notion that religion and science are both needed is a golden mean fallacy.
Religion instructs its followers in what to do. The knife doesn't.
I requested that he post some of this purported evidence.

I'm particularly interested in the first point, since the second two are laughably weak. How does one argue (against a non-creationist, non-fundie religious person) that science (and to a greater extent, rationality) and religion are incompatible? How does one explain that they are in no way even comparable? He's not saying religion is as valid as science in the realms of stuff like engineering, but rather that it addresses things that science doesn't. How does one defeat that argument?

Much thanks.

[Darth Wong]

Science and religion are indeed both forms of philosophy, but the difference between the two is that science subordinates itself to something outside of its own tenets, ie- physical data. Religion does not. Everything in religion is philosophically incestuous; one belief which supports another, which in turn calls upon another, etc.

Science is also a superior quality of philosophy, in the sense that it has concrete rules: rules which can be used to overturn scientific conclusions if the data calls for it (naturally, creationists claim that this has been done for evolution, but they're lying). Religion has no such rules; there is no concrete method in the religious worldview for disproving or refuting a religious belief.

And finally, the argument that religion covers things that science does not is utterly specious; these "things" that religion is supposed to deal with are not even known to exist. Religion's justifications are in fact circular; it invents problems such as "spiritual salvation" or the search for the "meaning of life" and then sells itself as the solution to those problems.

[wolveraptor]

It's absolutely true that religion addresses questions that science doesn't. Science asks how, religion asks why. Of course, most religions do a poor job of it, being overly simplistic and such.

[General Zod]

Simply point out that much of religion is inflexible and pre-determined, whereas science is more than willing to change its conclusions when satisfactory evidence is brought forward. If a system can't change its conclusions or positions on explanations for how some things work when new evidence is presented, it's generally useless as any type of objective system.

[Darth Wong]

It should also be pointed out that religious people often claim that religion is necessary for morality, but they conveniently forget that ethical philosophies need not incorporate the supernatural, so they can only be called "religions" in the loosest sense.

[defanatic]

Religion is not the cause of wars, but rather an excuse used by those in power to rally the public to war. A knife is not the cause of evil; it's how it's used.
The evidence for religious claims does exist, but it's thrown out.

Religion is the sole cause of some wars. What would convince a Guv to go out and conquer a piece of worthless land thousands of miles away. That bit of worthless land is also heavily defended for the same reasons the Guv wants it. That reason would be religion (Crusades..? Heard of them? No?).

The evidence for religion is silly.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm particularly interested in the first point, since the second two are laughably weak. How does one argue (against a non-creationist, non-fundie religious person) that science (and to a greater extent, rationality) and religion are incompatible? How does one explain that they are in no way even comparable? He's not saying religion is as valid as science in the realms of stuff like engineering, but rather that it addresses things that science doesn't. How does one defeat that argument?

Much thanks.

I would have thought the ways to go about this are to point to different and contradictory methodologies like you? If he is going to hide behind a WoI the other way I suppose is to ultimately point to the different conclusions.

You can do this two ways, if he accepts most scientific findings like evolution, age of the universe etc, point out that he does so based on science's conclusions, not religions (since you can't rationally conclude that from his religion's teachings). Ergo what he says is complementary, is really religious people adapting their belief in the face of scientific evidence, kind of like the RCC believing in "theistic evolution".

If he is going to bullshit and pretend that religion also conveniently says the same things (even if true, the religious text do not provide evidence on how they reach such conclusions), point out the one difference that exists. Science does not promote the existence of a supernatural being (although it does not preclude such a entity to one day become explainable) like religion. Not promoting something is different to not ruling it out.

[Darth Wong]

Non-fundie religious people often hide behind the very vagueness of their beliefs to claim that they cannot be refuted. But the root problem of religion as a philosophy remains: science and religion may both be philosophies, but religion is a shitty philosophy because it has no set method of differentiating between fact and bullshit.

[Vicious]

It's absolutely true that religion addresses questions that science doesn't. Science asks how, religion asks why. Of course, most religions do a poor job of it, being overly simplistic and such.

Religion isn't the only "philosophy" which asks "Why?”. Philosophy (the actual discipline) poses this question as well, and while it is in many respects the defining question of Philosophy, "Why?" is also posed by other disciplines in context, such as when Anthropology looks at the history of man and asks, "Why did man develop the way he did?”. "Why?" is a fundamental question in some form or another in many fields, especially the social sciences. It is the question that comes after "How?”.

An example would be in Sociology. You are studying the change in a society over time. You first demonstrate how the society has changed, and then you try to explain why those changes have occurred. In this case, "Why?" is the more important question because it is what tells us what drives the societal changes, not the how. Each change could have any number of factors precipitating it, and it is only by searching them out, finding the why, that we can explain the nature of the society in question.

"Why?" is not so necessary in the physical sciences (biology, chemistry, etc) because there is a (generally) logical progression, and so the why becomes apparent upon discovering the how. It is within the social sciences (sociology, anthropology, etc) that "Why?" becomes as important as "How?", and often more important.

As to the broader issues of "Why do we exist?" or "Why do we have good and evil?" there are many arguments. The most basic answer to the first is the answer that all life can give: to perpetuate itself. The question is the answer, as it were, in that existence is sufficient reason for existence. It sounds circular, but if you look at the singular drive that all organisms share, it is the drive to survive and perpetuate the species. There is no more basic drive. It takes an act of will, and often rigorous training, to supersede this drive and give one's life for something.

The most basic answer to the second is that good and evil are our way of categorizing the chaotic events of the world. Tied into all this is morality, which is where we have deemed certain things good and others evil. These are learned, even the repulsion to murder. Talk to young children, who think in a very simple "Me vs. Them" mentality, and you can see the seeds of this. We develop our anathema to killing and other "evil" acts because we are taught it is bad from when we are extremely young, just as we are taught the value of life, honesty, and other "good" concepts. This is not always a conscious process, as we are subjected to subconscious stimuli constantly, shaping how we develop.

We are, in essence, brainwashed into accepting our society's definition of morality as the proper way of things. Sociopaths, psychopaths and other individuals who lack proper, socially accepted moral judgment failed to acquire, for whatever reason, this conditioning. That is why, even on death row, they cannot grasp why what they did was wrong (of course, there are others who grasp this and indeed thrive on it, but we are talking about the kind of individuals who simply cannot make that connection in the first place).

This form of behavior is not conducive to working a group, and so we have developed social stigma associated with it, which have carried through in some form or another throughout our entire history. And again, these judgments feel like instinct because they are ingrained so deeply, so early on.

I am not passing a moral judgment on this issue. I am simply stating it as basically as possible. The fact is, without any kind of social conditioning, we are not naturally "moral" or "good" creatures. Nor is social conditioning unique to humans. Complex social order exists in many animal groups. It is what allows various animals, including us, to work together.

And yes, before it is mentioned, this is all very Machiavellian-sounding, because Machiavelli, while being off on many of his conclusions, was essentially right about some of it. Generally, we are driven by what benefits us or at least pleases us. We are inherently self-centered. It is up to the conditioning that we receive to determine how we channel that drive. For example, some people are conditioned to gain pleasure or joy at the thought of helping others. We call these individuals "Good", but when you break it down, they are doing it because it makes them feel good - a selfish reason at it's very core, and yet a social virtue.

However, just because something is done for fundamentally selfish reasons, even if the individual in question is unaware of the reason himself, does not detract from the value of what they do. The only thing it does is put it into perspective, and point out that how society and we ourselves explain why things happen and why they actually happen are not always the same.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, because I know this will generate a lot of flak, I must explain that this is written from outside the context of our society. I am not arguing that the social framework that exists is wrong or bad. I am simply removing it and revealing the underlying mechanisms. As an (possibly bad) analogy, think of your car. On the outside, it is pleasing to the eye (if you like your car, that is). On the inside, however, it is a twisted, ugly mass of machinery (to me, at least). Does this detract from the inherent beauty the car can possess from the outside? No, because the body hides the frame and the underlying processes. In the same way, society hides the raw neurological level at which we fundamentally operate. Without the body of society, it is (or can be) a repulsive concept, because we are used to seeing it with the shell around it.

[Darth Wong]

It should be noted that religion claims to explain why we are here, the meaning of life, etc, but it doesn't. It doesn't even really try. All it does is punt off those questions to a "higher plane" without answering them.

Why are we here, according to Christianity? Because God put us here, which begs the question of why God is here. What is the meaning of life, according to Christianity? To live our lives in a Godly manner so that we may eventually be with God in Heaven, which begs the question of what the meaning of God's life is. These are not answers; they are simply delaying tactics.

[SirNitram]

It should be noted that Empricism, the philosophy that science grew from, is rather unusual in that it doesn't explain 'Why'. Most others attempt to. The attempts are.. Well, attempts.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'd watch it with those that harp on about the benefits of metaphysics in explaining the why of things, because in my experience, they inevitably lead to fools who turn against naturalistic doctrine. It almost turns into a brand of solipsism, and we all know how much everyone here hates that.

[Surlethe]

The thing about religion and metaphysics explaining all the "why" questions is that they fail to answer the biggest one out there: Why does there have to be a reason for existence in the first place?

[Darth Wong]

Metaphysics suffers from the same problem as religion: no set mechanism for declaring that any particular idea is wrong. With no mechanism to declare anything wrong, it means absolutely nothing that such a philosophy declares anything right. So by their very nature, they are capable of giving you zero knowledge.

The only exception is fundamentalism, which does have a mechanism for declaring things wrong. But it's an idiotic mechanism which can be easily shown to be hopelessly self-contradictory.

[Sofia]

Religion's justifications are in fact circular; it invents problems such as "spiritual salvation" or the search for the "meaning of life" and then sells itself as the solution to those problems.

I agree with you that religion does a shitty job of answering our spiritual impulses, but I don't think that religion itself created those impulses. We're a curious species, so all those "meaning of life" questions would have come along in some form or other, religion or no.

[Drooling Iguana]

We're also an egotistical species, always eager to find ways to reinforce our delusion that the universe revolves around us. Life has to have some sort of cosmic meaning, because otherwise we'd have to accept the fact that we're just a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot in an incredibly vast universe, and the the only things that really care about humans are other humans. And dogs, but only because we bred them that way.

[Vicious]

The thing about religion and metaphysics explaining all the "why" questions is that they fail to answer the biggest one out there: Why does there have to be a reason for existence in the first place?

I'll restate what I said earlier:

The most basic answer to the first [why are we here?] is the answer that all life can give: to perpetuate itself. The question is the answer, as it were, in that existence is sufficient reason for existence.

Most of my post dealt with the issue of good and evil as social constructs rather than natural constructs. My evidence for this is the fact that while every human group has developed social order in some form, they vary widely in how they define what good and evil are.

Some societies (past or present) consider homosexuality evil (or taboo), others have no classification for it either way, and some actively encourage and promote it. Some consider pedophilia a grave evil, while others don't. These are two examples of relatively modern Western taboos that are not shared universally. These are also specific forms of sexual intercourse that are taboo (the latter more than the former) in Western society. More general Western "evils" are greed, sloth, etc. I am not going to get into why these have developed, because it would take far too long, but the point is that various cultures have different classifications of what is evil and what isn't. There are some taboos, such as incest, that are near-universal, but even in the case of incest it varies. In some societies, the incest taboo applies only to your parents or children, but not siblings (the ancient Egyptians come to mind here, or some European royal lineages). In others, there is a certain distance between cousins that is required before it becomes accepted, and even then it's not always completely without stigma.

Not even the taboo against pedophilia, one of the most reviled acts in Western society, is a universal. There are numerous societies who practice or condone pedophilia, either openly or secretly. An example are the Etoro, a New Guinean people who practice male homosexuality and pedophilia as part of their ordinary life. It is a central part of their religion, where they believe that there is a limited amount of semen in the world, and so they must pass it on to young boys if they are to grow up properly. Thus, sexual encounters between men and boys are perfectly accepted and encouraged within their society. A lesser example is Japan, where underage porn is extremely popular and rarely suppressed. It is not necessarily actively endorsed by society, but neither does the government or society in general strive to eliminate it, as opposed to the prevailing attitude in the West (obviously excluding Japan in this case).

Note that I am not justifying or advocating pedophilia in any way, shape or form. I am simply using it as an example of an extreme taboo in our society that is not universally shared.

I'd watch it with those that harp on about the benefits of metaphysics in explaining the why of things, because in my experience, they inevitably lead to fools who turn against naturalistic doctrine. It almost turns into a brand of solipsism, and we all know how much everyone here hates that.

I agree completely on the subject of solipsism. I am not saying that good and evil don't exist. I am only pointing out that they are not natural classifications, but rather social constructs that humans have created to provide a framework for interaction within society. The framework is real, if artificial in nature. Nor am I saying that the evolution of such a framework is not natural, because if we hadn't developed social order, we could not have progressed beyond a certain point. However, people are not born with a culture; they must learn it. This is why the rules of society are an artifical construct. The impetus for their creation is natural, i.e. evolution, but they are not innate to humans at an individual level.

It should be noted that Empricism, the philosophy that science grew from, is rather unusual in that it doesn't explain 'Why'. Most others attempt to. The attempts are.. Well, attempts.

Nor am I claiming that what I am stating is absolutely correct. Is it an attempt to explain the concept of social structure. There is, however, a fair amount of evidence which indicates that social conventions (which is all good and evil really are) are learned, rather than innate.

And to clarify in case my goal was misunderstood, I am not attempting to address why social structure exists. I am merely arguing it's existence as a way of explaining what good and evil are and why they exist (and I barely touched on this back in my first post).

[Surlethe]

The thing about religion and metaphysics explaining all the "why" questions is that they fail to answer the biggest one out there: Why does there have to be a reason for existence in the first place?

I'll restate what I said earlier:

The most basic answer to the first [why are we here?] is the answer that all life can give: to perpetuate itself. The question is the answer, as it were, in that existence is sufficient reason for existence.

I'm not talking about a reason for the existence of life, I'm talking about a reason for the existence of everything. Nothing that I've seen or heard of adequately answers why there has to be a reason for the existence of the universe, so any attempts to ask "why are we here?" or "what's the purpose of existence?" are simply begging the question: why does there have to be a reason in the first place?

[Vicious]

The thing about religion and metaphysics explaining all the "why" questions is that they fail to answer the biggest one out there: Why does there have to be a reason for existence in the first place?

I'll restate what I said earlier:

The most basic answer to the first [why are we here?] is the answer that all life can give: to perpetuate itself. The question is the answer, as it were, in that existence is sufficient reason for existence.

I'm not talking about a reason for the existence of life, I'm talking about a reason for the existence of everything. Nothing that I've seen or heard of adequately answers why there has to be a reason for the existence of the universe, so any attempts to ask "why are we here?" or "what's the purpose of existence?" are simply begging the question: why does there have to be a reason in the first place?

Short answer: Why do we study physics, or chemistry, or biology, or any other field of scientific inquiry? Because we're curious.

By your logic, one could argue that all of science is pointless since none of the processes which science tries to explain require a reason, and yet we accept those inquiries as legitmate questions.

From a human perspective, it's a legitimate question because we forever strive to understand and explain the world around us. Not for the sake of the universe, but for our own sake because we're insatiably curious.

As a side note, I agree with you that there is no particular reason for the existence of the universe. I am simply saying that if you want an answer, the most basic you can give is "Existence is sufficient justification for itself".

[McC]

Short answer: Why do we study physics, or chemistry, or biology, or any other field of scientific inquiry? Because we're curious.

Because doing so improves quality of life and capability of species. Curiosity plays a role, yes, but it is not the sole reason.

[Darth Wong]

By your logic, one could argue that all of science is pointless since none of the processes which science tries to explain require a reason, and yet we accept those inquiries as legitmate questions.

Wrong. Science asks how things work, not why they work that way. Scientists couldn't care less why the universe has the physical laws that it does; they only want to know what those laws are, so they can produce a reliable model of the universe.

Science is not in the business of asking meaningless questions.

[Vicious]

Short answer: Why do we study physics, or chemistry, or biology, or any other field of scientific inquiry? Because we're curious.

Because doing so improves quality of life and capability of species. Curiosity plays a role, yes, but it is not the sole reason.

This generally comes after the fact. If man had never asked "Why'd that happen?" when lightning struck or static electricity discharged, we wouldn't have learned to exploit the principles behind it. By being curious, we eventually learn how things work, and through that invent things to take advantage of various principles.

[Surlethe]

Short answer: Why do we study physics, or chemistry, or biology, or any other field of scientific inquiry? Because we're curious.

That doesn't mean there is a reason for the way chemical bonds work, or a reason for evolution, or a reason for the way the universe is.

By your logic, one could argue that all of science is pointless since none of the processes which science tries to explain require a reason, and yet we accept those inquiries as legitmate questions.

How do you use my logic to get from "the universe has no reason" to "science is pointless", especially since the only logic I've used is a deduction demonstrating question-begging? Science still pursues knowledge, regardless of whether there is a reason for that knowledge or not.

From a human perspective, it's a legitimate question because we forever strive to understand and explain the world around us. Not for the sake of the universe, but for our own sake because we're insatiably curious.

Which question? Simply because there's no overall purpose for existence does not mean there is no human curiosity.

As a side note, I agree with you that there is no particular reason for the existence of the universe. I am simply saying that if you want an answer, the most basic you can give is "Existence is sufficient justification for itself".

Which really isn't an answer, since it's circular. Why is there a reason for existence? Because ... we exist.

[Vicious]

By your logic, one could argue that all of science is pointless since none of the processes which science tries to explain require a reason, and yet we accept those inquiries as legitmate questions.

Wrong. Science asks how things work, not why they work that way. Scientists couldn't care less why the universe has the physical laws that it does; they only want to know what those laws are, so they can produce a reliable model of the universe.

Science is not in the business of asking meaningless questions.

I think I got on a mental tangent and confused philosophical reason with scientific mechanism. Mentally, I associate the reason for something occuring with the mechanism. My apologies.

Short answer: Why do we study physics, or chemistry, or biology, or any other field of scientific inquiry? Because we're curious.

That doesn't mean there is a reason for the way chemical bonds work, or a reason for evolution, or a reason for the way the universe is.

By your logic, one could argue that all of science is pointless since none of the processes which science tries to explain require a reason, and yet we accept those inquiries as legitmate questions.

How do you use my logic to get from "the universe has no reason" to "science is pointless", especially since the only logic I've used is a deduction demonstrating question-begging? Science still pursues knowledge, regardless of whether there is a reason for that knowledge or not.

As I said above, I got on a mental tangent and got lost. My apologies.

From a human perspective, it's a legitimate question because we forever strive to understand and explain the world around us. Not for the sake of the universe, but for our own sake because we're insatiably curious.

Which question? Simply because there's no overall purpose for existence does not mean there is no human curiosity.

My bad. I was referring to the question regarding the existence of the universe. Since the point I was making was flawed, I again apologize.

As a side note, I agree with you that there is no particular reason for the existence of the universe. I am simply saying that if you want an answer, the most basic you can give is "Existence is sufficient justification for itself".

Which really isn't an answer, since it's circular. Why is there a reason for existence? Because ... we exist.

(at myself). Ok, I should really read things through today. My answer is to the question: "Why do we exist?". I forgot to seperate the two parts of my comment and clarify what I was referring to because I'm thinking faster than I'm typing and losing things in the process.

There are two parts to my answer for "Why do we exist?". The first part is actually at the bottom (Honestly, this makes more sense to me when I think about it in this way - I don't know why). The second part of the answer is because the means is (are?) the end: maintainance of existence. Lifeforms spend a great deal of time ensuring perpetuation of their own existence. In short, most of their existence is spent maintaining said existence. This is why existence justifies itself. It is both mechanism and goal. The drive to procreate is an extension of this - seeking to continue yourself in some form through offspring. The first part of the answer is because the right combination of chemicals existed in the right conditions to start life in the first place, and once it got going the above kicked in. To answer the question "Why do we need a reason for existence?": because without asking for a reason there isn't really a discussion, unless you want to go around in circles over whether there's even a reason. It's just asked for the sake of discussion, IMO.

I can't say for the universe because I don't understand some of the underlying principles well enough, so I'll concede that.

Again, mea culpa for getting lost on a tangent and not un-tangling myself from the rest of my thoughts at the time. Sorry for the confusion.

@DW: I didn't see your post before hitting submit or I would have responded in my response to McC. Sorry about that, I'm screwing up quite a bit today.

[Surlethe]

I often find myself equivocating on "reason" between "sufficient condition" and "purpose" -- it's good to clarify what that means in a discussion like this.