Science & Religion Are Incompatible

“Science wants to know the mechanism of the universe, religion the meaning. The two cannot be separated”. ~ Charles Townes, physicist

These are what religions exist to do is to answer these two great questions. Where did we come from and now that we are here how shall we live? In my view one thing we know about all religions on the first question is that they’re all wrong. That’s not where we came from. They may be beautiful stories… There is nothing wrong with them as stories. They are excellent stories but they are not true.

They’re fictions…” ~ Salman Rushdie. Actual interview:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/742523801395910

Introduction

Both religion and science attempt to derive truths about reality and history. One is inherently destined to fail and the other succeed mainly due to having diametrically opposed methods of obtaining knowledge about reality and testing the reliability of those claims. The branch of philosophy that involves studying justification for belief, what methods we use to find knowledge and how to validate it for example, is called epistemology. Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because religion uses a defective epistemology that won’t achieve the goal of finding reliable truths and pass validation. The method science developed is self correcting, open to any solid evidence, and approaches truth seeking in an opposite direction to religion - to disprove instead of prove as a critical feature. Science coalesces onto single truths whereas religion splits into claims for thousands of God(s) and tens of thousands of religions and sects, often that are mutually exclusive. They can’t be all correct, but they can be all wrong. Science has stupendously succeeded in discoveries where religion has failed.

Prove vs. Disprove 

“Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge”.~ Carl Sagan

As mentioned above the primary reason science and religion are incompatible are their different truth seeking methods. Religion basically seeks to prove its beliefs whereas science fundamentally attempts to disprove it’s hypotheses and theories.

One definition of science is it’s simply a method that seeks not to be fooled. As Coyne has written, how one approaches the question“How would I know if I was wrong”? is key (1). This question is approached differently by the two. For example modern medicine is based on scientific principles and in trying to eliminate placebo effects as much as possible it will often need to conduct research that uses double blind, placebo controlled, cross over, case controlled, multi arm clinical trials. All this so statistically significant findings can be produced reliably. Placebo effects in humans are very strong and pernicious. Science results are published and go through anonymous peer review that is brutal. One can gain respect not only by discovering something new but finding faults in others’ studies. If the results cannot be reproduced by others, they are often discarded or looked forever with suspicion. Sometimes scientific papers must be retracted.

What are the sources of religious claims to truth seeking? Most trace back to various scriptures, revelation, personal experiences, anecdotal stories, visions, near death accounts, and especially eyewitness testimony that cannot be confirmed. Attempts to use logic to support a view, often stated as truth in the beginning and then only working to support it, is common. In many cases claims to history and reality are constructed so they can’t be tested or falsified. Supposed eyewitness testimony thousands of years ago can’t be verified. Possible other reasons for events are not subject to being ruled out. In the end faith is the ultimate arbitrator if evidence conflicts with religious assertions. Because the emphasis is only on providing evidence for held views, often from presuppositions, thousands of religions result and thousands of Gods have been worshipped with the assurance to the particular believer that their faith is supported by evidence, not realizing that anyone can come up with reasons for a belief. Orthodox Jews can support their literal view of themselves as God’s chosen people. Christians can argue that Jesus was God, but splinter into 45,000 sects or denominations (Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist, etc.) because each one claims to have the best evidence for their particular Christian beliefs (2). Hindus can justify reincarnation, castes and millions of gods. Islam holds that only it is the true religion to the point of murdering apostates and gays. Mormons are sure Joseph Smith’s visions were from God despite him being criminally charged in as many as 42 various crimes - basically a con man (3). The previous Mormon positions on dark pigmented people indicated they were the result of a curse rather than the result of evolution and natural selection. Just as light colored skin is not the result of God’s favorite color palette but rather the result of Vitamin D and folate deficiencies and evolutionary selection pressures due to modern humans moving out of Africa. See this wonderful TED talk about human skin color.

During a debate with Bill Nye, when asked what would disprove his young earth creationist views, Ken Ham simply answered “nothing”. In contrast when Coyne wrote what would disprove the theory of evolution he listed several including lots of fossils out of sequence (4). A miracle often mentioned that would disprove atheism is the documented regrowth of a limb in answer to intercessory prayer, considering that many animals can do it and a personal God is claimed to be able to do anything from curing cancer to rising people from the dead (5). What’s one limb to God? 

Outcomes

Secondly we can look at results, outcome data, from science versus religion. As Rushdie has said, all religions fail with regards to origin claims, both cosmologically and for species. See Biblical Cosmology and it's utter failure to match reality. Apologists run the extremes from denying science in favor of literal scriptural interpretations to applying so much metaphor and figurative interpretations to their writings that their religions are basically modern mythology or poetry/literature only. How we actually got here, when, from what and from where was not revealed by any religious sources. That answer from science and evolution informs the “whys” of life which impact answers to meaning and purpose. Religious beliefs about origins for example are just made up stories that “fit” the apparent observations (The Biblical ‘Fall', a geocentric universe, eg). That is a good way to be fooled because religious claims to history and reality are often exposed as erroneous despite seemingly fitting observations when they are tested and falsified by science. Without a system to test and falsify beliefs, anything can be held or rationalized. And is, as witnessed by thousands of religions that are said to be God's truth.

Modern medicine is continually revealing where infections, cancer, genetic defects and other human maladies really arise from and how to treat them. Epilepsy is not demon possession. Cancer is not a curse from God because you were bad. Rain did not fall because you prayed for it or did a dance. Unraveling confusing autoimmune diseases and better treatments is becoming a reality. Revealing how sex really produces offspring was a science success. Documented intercessory prayer alone never works. Supposed miracles are either revealed to have natural explanations or unknowns - and a gap of knowledge holds by definition no evidence for a claim. No, Mother Teresa was no saint. Your computer and smartphone, landing spacecraft onto asteroids millions of miles away from earth years later moving at thousands of miles per second, knowing how plants and animals really work, understanding human behaviors, forecasting weather and studying climate, and increasing human lifespans are results of science and how it works and never from religious activities. Human suffering was incredibly improved by modern medicine, scientific advances in food production, and public health rather than appeals to the gods, angels, or saints. No one is coming to save us and no evil spirits are tweaking our lives.

Poisonous Pious “Possibilities”

Besides having a severely deficient epistemology and just looking at how incredibly successful science is compared to religions that demonstrates how ineffective religion is compared to science, there is yet another broken methodology common to religion. Once you see it, it’s everywhere in apologist and Biblical Scholarship. Having dreams of possibilities can help us to reach great successes but we can also lose all that we own through gambling based on the possibility of winning a 1 in a million lottery without considering the context of probabilities.

Both religion and science propose possibilities for observations. In science these are called hypotheses. They have several characteristics. First, they are not just guesses but educated guesses. They are based on other facts and theories and so carry the weight of probability. Second, they are testable and falsifiable. They are the beginning of a search for finding truths. 

In contrast religion commonly uses possibilities to avoid conclusions not acceptable or to allay doubts that there could be a problem with beliefs. They offer an end to thinking and searching instead of a beginning. Even if a possibility is absurd or so improbable causing common sense to be immensely violated, any possibility is often acceptable to the theist. Often no attempt is made to tell from a list of possibilities which one is definitely correct rather than just the author’s favorite. There’s no need for the theologian; just any possibility dismisses the issue and will do in their worldview. Let’s look at an example of how this is commonly framed. Kyle Butt is a very active Christian apologist and debater. He was challenged by Dan Barker regarding an apparent Biblical contradiction (6).

“But Joshua said to the tribes of Joseph—to Ephraim and Manasseh—“You are numerous and very powerful. You will have not only one allotment but the forested hill country as well. Clear it, and its farthest limits will be yours; though the Canaanites have chariots fitted with iron and though they are strong, you can drive them out.”

~ Joshua 17: 17-18

“The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains,

because they had chariots fitted with iron.”

~ Judges 1:19

Before attempting a reconciliation he plainly states that any possible explanation will do, it doesn’t need to be particularly probable or believable. It doesn’t need to pass common sense, but like a proof in philosophy or mathematics it just needs to be possible. He writes:

“These two passages have several plausible ways of reconciliation. And, please remember that the exact way to reconcile any contradiction need not be pinpointed, as long as a possible way can be provided. The rest of this brief answer will deal with only two of the many possible ways to reconcile the passages.” [bold in the original].

He then proposes two interpretations. They would drive the Canaanites from the land only if they were following God and confident since in other instances they have been not faithful so of course they failed here. It’s their fault, not that God being with them didn’t help. His other “possible” explanation is explained: “A second possible solution could be that the children of Israel did conquer the mountain country and succeeded in driving out its inhabitants for a brief time, but they were unable to maintain control of the cities. Thus, by the time referred to in Judges 1, the cities already could have been retaken by the chariots of iron.”

Note that how anyone could fail if the Lord was with you is not addressed, which is the whole point of the contradiction. If God be with us, who can be against us is flat out a contradiction. His explanations are just ad hoc interpolations forcing words into the text and motives that are not there but could be. “But they were unable to drive the people from the plains because of their previous unfaithful behaviors…” for example.  But then the Lord would not really be with them, would He? This is what happens when we start reading the Bible horizontally instead of vertically and compare books written by different authors at different times - it produces many errors and contradictions as expected. The “it’s possible” get-out-of-jail card is used frequently.

Confronted with needing to take dinosaur “kinds” on board the ark, young earth creationists will say it’s possible only young or eggs were taken. I read one possibility put forward that God put the animals on a pooping schedule so the 8 human zoo keepers could keep up with the year long stall needs. Or maybe He put them to sleep. Any possibility will work. One creationist arguing that the Flood was local when challenged why Noah had to take birds on board wrote it was possible God only had Noah take flightless birds. In science hypothesis are the beginning of inquiry; to the apologist, possibilities are to shut down thinking and placate the believers. Is it no wonder that apologetics is defined as the defense of the faith or doctrine and not necessarily the defense of truth? Imagine if science, when considering human reproduction, stopped at the two possibilities (hypotheses) at the time put forward - either a little person was in the sperm or the egg.

Most people are familiar with the long day of Joshua 10 where the sun and moon supposedly stopped in the sky:

“12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a human being. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!”

We know that the earth goes around the sun but Biblical cosmology like all the other civilizations at the time had it backwards. An earth that was spinning at 1,000 mph at the equator that suddenly stopped would cause all kinds of massive disasters from earthquakes, tsunamis, and other cataclysms. Let alone all kinds of cultures on the other side noting a prolonged night or periods of sunrise or sunsets stuck in place that never happened. What is an apologist to do? Any possibility, no matter how absurd, will do for the apologist and believer. Don Stewart does his best (7):

1. It’s all poetry

2. It was a actually just an eclipse

3. The earth did stop spinning. God prevented the planet’s catastrophes

4. It just slowed but did not stop; a day was 48 hours. “… did not hasten…” is the out

5. God supernaturally gave a mirage that the sun & moon were still fixed. Refraction

6. It really means the sun would stop shinning, cooling the fighters

7. Not the day prolonged but the night before it was continued 

He begins his conclusion with “We have seen that there are a variety of explanations to Joshua’s long day without having to admit to scientific error. Although several of these views are possible, the theory that the sun actually slowed down its movement seems to be the best way of looking at the evidence.” Evidence? What evidence?

These are just ad hoc rationalizations and excuses to avoid the truth. As I’ve documented elsewhere, the Bible’s cosmology is completely wrong and consistent with what others societies also thought at the time (see Bible Cosmology blog). This is just special pleading flying in the face of common sense and reading into the text meanings that are not there. This is not scholarly writing that would survive in any major academic university around the world.

Possibility used selectively. As discussed, "it's possible" is used in apologetics often to end doubt or to suspend further thinking instead of being a starting point for further investigation. And yet the believer does not think this way consistently in their lives, rather only when it seems convenient and expedient. For example, since it's "possible" they could win a million dollar lottery, why not sell all that they own and purchase lottery tickets since it's possible they can win? That doesn't happen because we normally think in terms of probabilities. Yet, as detailed above, absurd and supremely improbable rationalizations are accepted when it will dismiss contradictions in their minds and preserve the faith.

Dr. McClelland discusses how and why apologists use creative "possibilities" to dismiss Bible contradictions: https://www.facebook.com/reel/476622551854158

What about religious scientists?

Can scientists who are religious do good science? Absolutely. The can and do. They do this by compartmentalizing their work and personal beliefs. Notice that in their publications there never is a miracle or the supernatural inserted into the Methods and Materials section. It’s true that science uses methodological naturalism as a default position. That is not a presupposition but rather rests on 400 years of never needing the supernatural for an explanation. Not presupposition or faith, but trust in repeated successes without the need of supernatural input. Many theist scientists would love to study the supernatural and collect a Nobel prize for demonstrating it but there never has been solid repeatable evidence for the supernatural nor a need for it in science. And in terms of a personal God, a theistic one vs. a deistic one, we should be overflowing with evidence for this type of God interacting with us constantly according to its followers but we are not, let alone that billions can’t agree on which personal God exists.

What about all the great scientists in the past who were religious? Before 1859 and Darwin & Wallace there was no cogent alternative to “God must have done it”. Today we have a proven (yes, the newer DNA evidence do rise to the level of proof of evolution) set of scientific reasons why and how millions of species are here, and mostly how life really operates. The origin of life, abiogenesis, remains an unknown but that is separate from evolution, the origin of species. It does not rule out a God but forces the conclusion that He must have used evolution or allowed it and all natural processes to produce the amazing diversity of life. Why theistic evolution in my opinion fails for multiple reasons is detailed here.

Conclusion

Science and religion are incompatible. Fundamentally they use two different methodologies for seeking truths and the one by science produces results instead of excuses. Science basically develops hypotheses to test and falsify. If they can’t be falsified they are provisionally accepted. Scientific theories which explain why and how we observe facts are often so well supported and confirmed that to deny them is perverse. Religion basically develops an assertion to realty and/or history and usually then goes about finding evidence for a belief, which of course is easy to do as witnessed by thousands of gods and religions that people have worshipped, many that are mutually exclusive. The beliefs are not abandoned in the face of scientific, rational, or historical contradictions but rather “possibilities” are put forward to try and explain away contradiction, and often any possibility no matter how improbable or absurd is acceptable via this defective method of truth searching.

The success of science with confirmed explanations for reality are overwhelming and its success in making our lives better via applications in so many ways far eclipses any explanations that religion has fabricated over the past 3,000 years. Personal false beliefs may seem superficially logical and be comforting but they won’t solve the problems we have nor advance our understanding of the world around us. In searching for truths and reality religion is a hindrance not a virtue. It is constrained by the very defective architecture of its epistemology.

References

1. Faith vs. Fact. 2015. Coyne, Jerry. Penguin Publishing Group, New York, NY. 311 pages.

2. https://www.livescience.com/christianity-denominations.html

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system

4. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/

5. https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

6.  https://apologeticspress.org/were-the-iron-chariots-too-powerful-301/

7. https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_625.cfm