“General Synod heard that public figures such as Professor Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, use a “crude caricature” of faith to depict worshippers as “blind” and “irrational”.
Clergy and lay members of the Church said it was perfectly possible to believe in God and Darwin’s theory of evolution, and said that religion can explain areas of existence that science cannot.
But they warned against treating the Bible as a scientific textbook, and claimed the “naivety” of some creationists can damage the standing of Christians who work in science and provide ammunition to their enemies.
So-called “young Earth” creationists in the US believe the story of Genesis is literally true and that God made the world in six days.
Peter Capon, a lay member of Synod from Manchester diocese who tabled the Private Member’s Motion on the compatibility of science and religious belief, said that Christians believe the world exists because of the will of God whereas atheists consider this to be a “complete delusion”.
He went on: “We wish to refute the idea promoted by atheist scientists that science is on the side of the atheist in answering these sorts of questions.
“We wish to refute the perception that you have to choose between science and faith.”
Read more at RichardDawkins.net
Futher reading at BBC News
God thought up natural selection
In order to create perfection!
[quote]He said that belief in the invisible subatomic particles of quantum physics requires just as great a leap of faith as belief in God.
“If believing that isn’t faith I don’t know what is and I don’t think that we need to be defensive about ours,” the bishop said. [/quote]
Because something supported by experiment and evidence takes just as much faith! Quantum physics is strange and counterintuitive, but it is not faith.
Silly silly man.
In so much as Science has, time and again, disproved the myths upon which these faiths are founded – yes, the two are utterly incompatible.
Either you believe in scientifically proven fact, or you believe in fiction. It boils down to that. This is one arena in which there is absolutely no gray area.
Unfortunately religion’s “explanations” are a heap of mumbo bloody jumbo!
Nice to see them pointing out the bible is not a science text (what with it not explaining much of anything at all and certainly not anything scientific) but
“We wish to refute the perception that you have to choose between science and faith.”
Well – go on then. Lets hear the argument. To refute something you actually have to do so. With logic and explanations. Wishing you could refute it is not the same thing at all.
But religion, as far as us atheists are concerned, doesn’t actually EXPLAIN anything. It’s just ideas. 2000-3000 year old ideas that people cling to because they’re comforting, or intriguing. No religion has ever presented any concrete facts about the universe or life, and they never will.
I think science and faith are fundamentally incompatible due to the fact that science requires constant doubting and questioning – the polar opposite to faith.
Is there more to it than that?
This is an issue I always bring up I am very science based in my ideas but I always have said why can’t both theorys be used together ie God created life, life evolved etc…
“So-called “young Earth” creationists in the US believe the story of Genesis is literally true and that God made the world in six days.”
Can I interest you in this horse? It’s dead, but that just reduces the feeding costs and adds to the exercise benefit while flogging it
Yeah, one’s based on observation and evidence, one’s based on the lack of both of those, so they’re not incompatible, just wholly contradictory.
Also, “religion can explain areas of existence that science cannot”, well, no, it can come up with explanations, but so can a five year old with a crayon, it doesn’t make those explanations right.
i think francis collins, head of the NIH, is saying that too…
dr. dawkins cracks me up. sometimes he gets a bit over the top–surely he knows a few scientists who are blind & irrational too!
It is not unreasonable for them to theorise that our current scientific understanding may not rule our the existence of a god. Though I am somewhere between agnostic and ignostic, with a touch of ultra-modern spiritual ideas thrown in and almost no Christian beliefs left (in some ways I still agree with their sense of honour, in some areas) I agree with that concept.
That said I find it hard to believe that the rest of their theory is right when their foundation is wrong.
“.. religion can explain areas of existence that science cannot.”
hogwash.
Well, I see no reason why the existence of evolution means there can be no God. It’s just obviously not the God that is described in the Bible. (I don’t like going around crowing to people that their religious beliefs are wrong when I really have no idea that they definitely are, but I think Creationists have to face facts – Genesis isn’t true.) Evolution doesn’t give an explanation for how life actually started, so it’s still perfectly possible that there is some sort of God out there. I personally think that ‘God’ (if it exists,) is just a life force rather than a conscious being that judges people…But then I could be wrong, and clutching a one-way ticket to Damnation.
For f**k’s sake
Well darned right, I don’t see why they are much incompatible at all so long is willing to balance the two carefully.
Hi Derren!
I’m a big fan of you from Sweden. I found out about you 3 month ago. Since then I have been watching and reading everything that I have been able to find.
I just want to say thank you for all shows, books and for this blog. I just love it all!
Is there some way I can get your autograph?
Good luck in the future!
Pontus
My apologies, though I fundamentally disagree. Science and religion are not compatible. Either a person accepts an evidence-based understanding of reality or a faith-based understanding of reality.
Fairy Tales will never be fact, will never be anything better than entertainment or metaphor. Believing fairy tales as fact will never be scientific. Religion and science are diametrically opposed; one based on evidence and the other on lies.
This will never change.
I believe there is an island 3 miles off the coast of the US, near new york, which is inhabited by 10 trillion floating vaginas, the reason nobody has ever visited the island is because the vaginas are heavily armed, they have a vast military, and are hostile to any who approach. They have a nuclear arsenal that dwarfs that of the USA, NATO and Russia combined.
What proof do I have of the existence of this island of multitudinous, isolationist hovering quims? I have none… and I need none, according to religious logic.
Not incompatible, but orthoganal.
Science explains HOW.
Religion explains WHY.
So, if evolution and religion go hand in hand… what part in our reality has GOD played. Does he intervene (and break physical natural laws) when he answers prayer, or performs miracles – if not, then is he really the Christian GOD?
Personally, I can’t see how a world can be compatible with both evolution/cosmology and the Christian religion.
Jess XXX:
“Evolution doesn’t give an explanation for how life actually started,”
well, no, thats the Theory of Abiogenesis which explains it quite adequately. The Theory of Evolution doesnt concern itself with the origin of life.
Be fair — there’s a tiny bit of a point here.
The Big Bang Theory is every bit as intangible as Ganesh and Jesus’s Dad. Ninety-nine per cent (not a scientifically sourced figure) of those who believe in scientific cosmology are choosing to believe a story they’ve been told. You know that’s true and denying it makes you just as selective as a theist.
It’ll be interesting to see how sciencey religions will get in next couple of decades.
I mean, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God: Holy texts, places of worship, billions of people praying daily…
BUT: All this evidence *strongly* indicates that ‘God’ and ‘Religion’ are *cultural* phenomena. ‘God’ is a fictional literary entity, similiar to Shakespeare’s Hamlet etc. Real, physical evidence for a God: Nothing. All tests so far (and people have tried hard!) have failed spectacularly.
Religion is as compatible or incompatible to Science as Opera or Theatre is ‘compatible’ to Science.
When two religions argue what ‘God’ is the right one and what is the false one: Well, it’s exactly the same situation as arguing which football club is the better one… a fundamentally undecidable problem. Contrary to science. Newton’s apple falls *down*, not up!
@J-P: Not at all, it’s absolutely true that “religion can explain areas of existence that science cannot,” it’s just than it’s explanations are incorrect. Science, being more interested in truth, has to admit that it can’t answer those questions while religion is free to just make stuff up.
@Jim Wilson: Natural selection is a process that involves a cycle of painful and pointless deaths in order to move towards more suitable and adaptive forms at a glacial pace. It’s one thing to point out that that’s how reality works (since, after all, it is), but anyone who thinks that there is a god that intentionally chose to use natural selection as a means to some (any) end must logically conclude that that god is the most fiendish and evil monster imaginable.
Of course they’re not compatible. Faith is just the absence of thinking, so to have faith is to not use logic, reason and skepticism in your search for answers.
Also, I can’t believe the fact that billions of people believe in a god (actually many different contrasting ones) is used as evidence for its validity. The earth is so inconceivably tiny in reference to our galaxy, and further the universe, that for us humans who have basically sprang up out of nowhere (on a cosmic time line) to think we were intentionally created by a divine creator and that we have existed since the start of time is so incredibly misguided.
Religion was fine, thousands of years ago, but why should we still be giving primitive thinking a chance?
There can be serious practical incompatibilities between the holders of the (science and religious) belief systems: 1. disrespect engendered by belief differences – e.g. scientists may judge those who use faith as a way to decide what to believe as being weak-minded or poor thinkers, religious people may judge scientists as being arrogant, myopic and unable to connect with truth felt directly, 2. aggression can surface between people with strongly held but conflicting beliefs, 3. beliefs tend to influence actions, so conflicting beliefs can manifest as conflicting actions.
As a scientist I have faith in reason and evidence as a way to decide provisional truth, though in practise it’s often necessary to make non-scientific intuitive decisions day-to-day, and these are leaps of faith.
“Science explains HOW.
Religion explains WHY.”
Believers like to use the argument from design: Life and the universe look as if they’re designed,and from that you can infer that there’s a designer, which we call god.
But when looking at a designed object, as well as figuring out that someone made it, you can often make a good guess as to what *purpose* it was designed for – The hands of a watch go around at regular intervals, so you could figure out that it was designed to tell time – maybe for cooking, or to predict when the sun will come up next. A car has an engine and seats, windscreen wipers and an enclosing shell – you could figure out that it was designed so that people could travel quickly in the rain without getting wet…
…If you found a glass jar with a lid, you might easily think that it’s some type of waterproof container. Etc etc… With a totally unfamiliar object it’s unlikely you’d figure out *exactly* what it’s for, but you might get close.
When asking this question, the answer is often given – “god created the universe for people – humans are the point of creation” – but that’s not really an answer – it’s like saying the watch was designed to make the hands go round, or the jar was designed so that the lid fits, or the car was designed so that the wipers could keep the rain off the windscreen…
The answer “people” doesn’t answer the big question – *why* did he do it? please use all your knowledge and try and figure out what god’s purpose for it all is… what was god’s reason to do it at all?
It’s a question I posed on another forum, after seeing a religious pamphlet with “THE MEANING OF LIFE” in bold text on the front page. The answers I got weren’t very impressive – either “Because god wants worshippers – it’s a test to find the best and weed out the rest” (muslim), “because god’s a dick who just wants worshippers and likes torturing everyone else” (atheist interpretation), or “We don’t know – it’s a mystery” (catholic). Plus a few other strange replies.
I’ve got a couple of (nicer) example answers of my own, btw – “The universe is a big theme park ride – it *may* seem scary and horrible now, but you’ll appreciate it when you get off” or “the universe is a giant kinetic sculpture – you’ll appreciate it when you see it from the outside”
No *answers*, just speculation…
Very interesting provocation andy. I take the philosophical root of not answering the question and instead attacking the meaning of the question: I believe that organisms with a sense of purpose have evolved because being purposeful is a better staying-alive strategy (i.e. formulating goals with sub-goals etc helps us solve problems), but then our tendency to project our model of ourselves onto other things (i.e. assume others are like us) has made use think that everything MUST also have purpose (because we do). So we think that “What is the purpose of X?” is a meaningful question for every X. But not all questions are meaningful, and many questions are loaded with presumptions, like “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”
Also, how does this relate to the main topic?
I think they are compatible. In the end, the big bang theory is very reasonable, and has sufficient evidence to support its validity. But, it can’t go further backwards in the history of the universe than the first molecule. How did that first molecule arrive there? For me, this is a perfectly valid reason to a cosmological christian. I do think that actual creatonists are retards though.
@boultoa: I was responding to Chad’s comment that “science explains how, religion explains why”. It’s often asserted that science explains the nuts and bolts of the universe, but is unable to answer the deeper questions, which is where religion takes over… My question is a kind of ‘OK then, believers – put your money where your mouth is!’ challenge.
Quote: “Clergy and lay members of the Church said it was perfectly possible to believe in God and Darwin’s theory of evolution, **and said that religion can explain areas of existence that science cannot.**”
It’s related.
@andy I’m trying to relate your comments to the main topic because I can’t tell if you’re supporting the “incompatible” stance or not. I think there’s inherent incompatibility between many scientific and religious ideas and thus conflict is likely to result between the people believing those ideas. For example, the Pope saying that using condoms could endanger public health and increase the problem of HIV/Aids appears to directly conflict the science of how aids and condoms work – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Z1Kl7B_RA .
Another main conflict is how we acquire knowledge / truth – religions often promote accepting assertions by the authority of God, whereas science treats this Appeal To Authority approach as being a logical error, thus a flawed approach for getting to truth.
@boultoa: Yeah, I think they’re incompatible, for all those reasons… I’m not sure the ‘pope says condoms help spread HIV’ thing is a good example though, unless he was invoking his papal infallibility when he said that…
In 1959, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, at the University of Chicago’s Yerkes Observatory, introduced me to mysticism and the universality of the Universe. While many scientists believe that science and religion can co-exist harmoniously, few would grant the same to mysticism.
In “Quantum Questions / Mystical Writings of the World’s Greatest Physicists” (Shambala Publications 2001), Ken Wilber includes lengthy essays by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, and Eddington. Although I am not a fan of Ken Wilber, I am grateful for his compiling these quotations.
I’d say that science and mysticism are more compatible – mysticism has insights that can be tested, rather than the unimpeachable dogma that religion has…
…of course, practically, mysticism is responsible for a whole lot of sloppy pseudoscience… but they’re not inherently opposed… imho…
Andy,
True mystics have direct insights into the ultimate reality which true scientists continually pursue. Mystics cannot talk or write about it because it is suprarational (for want of a better word); scientists, in turn, can only theorize about it because it is not subject to observation or measurement. Dark matter and dark energy are examples of the latter.
Many empiricists say “I only believe what can be proven,” but seldom can – by themselves – truly prove what they believe to be true. Wise scientists are aware of the limits of science, although they continually push those boundaries outward. They all realize, albeit may seldom admit, that the unknown far exceeds the known.