Tuesday, March 9, 2010

The tedious semantics of "compatible": Empirical or Philosophical?

Oh boy, the ever-tedious accomodationism debate is flaring up again. I don't know who really fired the first shot (sounds like it was Rosenau, but who can ever tell).1 But really, can't we just lay this one to rest? It's really very simple, and the difference between accomodationists and non-accomodationists can be neatly summed up by critical examination of the following quote from John Wilkins:

...the data is that science and religion coexist nearly all the time – most of those who support scientific views are religious.

And herein lies the heart of the confusion, and I can't believe that folks like Wilkins are still putting their fingers in their ears and saying "Lalalalalala I can't hear you." What us non-accomodationists mean when we say that science and religion are not compatible is not an empirical claim -- it is a philosophical claim. Ultimately there are empirical underpinnings that drive this philosophy, but in the end it is a philosophical claim.

And what is that claim? We are asserting that two epistemologies which consistently yield different results for the same truth claims are inherently incompatible. By definition. That is how we are defining the word "compatible" -- for two epistemologies to be compatible, they must usually yield the same or similar answers to the central questions they seek to answer.

Given that definition, there is of course vast empirical support for the contention that science and religion -- and in this case, I mean "religion" to signify a collection of histories and dogma, rather than a vague notion of spirituality or our good old friend apophatic theology or anything -- are not "compatible". We can see time and time again that they yield different values for the same truth claims. Was Jesus born of a virgin? Science says this is impossible2, Christianity says it is true. Did Mohammed ascend into heaven on the backs of winged horses? Science says no, Islam says yes. Are there beings known as avatars running around on earth appearing human but wielding supernatural powers? Science assumes no without extreme proof, Hinduism assumes it must be true because some dusty old books said so.

The accomodationists typically ignore this line of argumentation altogether, and simply point out that lots of people believe in both science and religion. We know that. I'm so tired of hearing that repeated like it is a refutation of the philosophical claim of incompatibility. It would be like if somebody was trying to argue that music piracy was wrong, and the rebuttal was "but so many people do it!" So what? Yes, we agree, many people simultaneously subscribe to incompatible epistemologies, and the human mind has proved impressively deft at reconciling and dealing with this. There's a reason the idea of doublethink in 1984 was so plausible -- we all already do this, all the time.

That goes for me, too, and Larry Moran, and PZ Myers, and Richard Dawkins, and Josh Rosenau, and every other homo sapiens on this planet. We all engage in a bit of doublethink now and then. Some of us do it more than others, but anybody who denies ever doing it is a liar or a fool. Whether it's rationalizing a minor ethical lapse, convincing yourself that a recent expensive purchase was the right choice, or devotion to a family member even when a cold calculating approach might dictate otherwise... holding contradictory positions is part of being human, and that's okay.

This does not mean that if a particular set of contradictory positions is held by a large number of people that we are forced to stop saying they are contradictory, or else we are being "unscientific" by ignoring the empirical data. That's just inane beyond all comprehension. Yes, absolutely, lots of people are both scientific and religious. This empirical claim is beyond a doubt. The philosophical claim that the two epistemologies are incompatible is a whole separate issue. Care to debate that one, accomodationists? Or do you find the strawman you've constructed too tempting?

1After re-reading Rosenau's original post, I have decided that in one respect he was right on the money: Far too much of the accomodationism debate has centered around who picked the fight. Was it the accomodationists when Mooney et al started saying that Coyne et al were damaging the fight for science education? Or was it Coyne et al when they harshly criticized the NCSE for their stance on science/religion compatibility? I have an opinion about this, but on this point I think Rosenau is right: Who fucking cares. There have been so many shots fired at this point that it is irrelevant who started it. As a result, I regret having commented about that in my original post, and have struck it out.

2Yes, I realize that some people have made the claim that science cannot comment on the truth or falsity of individual claims of supernatural events in the distant past, because there is no way to repeat the experiment or observe it or what have you. Hogwash. By that some logic, science cannot comment on the truth or falsity of the claim that "the sun will rise tomorrow". Nobody has observed that, we can't perform the experiment right now... but I think it's clear that science can say that, in all likelihood, the sun will rise tomorrow, with such a degree of confidence to be essentially true. By the same token, science can properly assert that a virgin homo sapiens cannot become pregnant, with such a degree of confidence that the proposition is essentially false.

8 comments:

  1. Very well put. The empirical claim seems so obviously besides the point that I wonder at times if those promoting it are being intentionally disingenuous.

    Regarding your footnote, however, I think you've somewhat misstated the claim. The issue really isn't about induction, since the argument goes that the supernatural is essentially immune to induction -- an omnipotent god could violate whatever laws it likes, and there would be no way to test for that if the event is no longer accessible (e.g., if it is in the distant past). Induction doesn't help in these matters -- some other arguments need to be marshalled against the miraculous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "By the same token, science can properly assert that a virgin homo sapiens cannot become pregnant, with such a degree of confidence that the proposition is essentially false."

    And if she did by nondisjunction or fusion of two ova or some other possible, but highly implausible means, the offspring would be a female.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The issue really isn't about induction, since the argument goes that the supernatural is essentially immune to induction.

    A fair point. Like the claim that "all of the evidence for evolution was planted by Satan to confuse people", ultimately a claim of this sort must be rejected on philosophical grounds.

    Which I think helps bolster my argument that a philosophical claim can also be scientific. The philosophy of science rather strongly dictates that we have to reject the claim about Satan planting all of the evidence against evolution. It is both a philosophical claim, and a scientific one. (But not an empirical one)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nice post James. I agree 100%. I came here from the link in your comment over on WEIT. I've always liked your comments over there and this post was very lucid so I've added your Blog to my RSS feed to check it out. See...sometimes a little self promotion works!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I too came here from WEIT. Tasteful, relevant promotion is always welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Virgins may not be able to get pregnant, but they can have unfertilised eggs accidentally implant in their uteruses (uteri?) and be pretty damn confused for a few months. (It happened to one of my cousins.)

    Good post, btw. Yes, you can be a religious scientist, just like you can be a doctor who smokes or an animal lover who eats meat. Doesn't mean it makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice blog, James.

    I don't think your case is very strong here. You are making a broad claim: "Religion and science are incompatible." Then you cherry-pick specific aspects of specific religions that you find non-scientific. To counter this, I only need to point out that there are people who are religious who DON'T believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that avatars of the gods are with us, or any of the other things you mentioned.

    Also, I think there are different types of accomodationist. The kind you are talking about - those who make the broad claim "Science and religion are compatible" - are silly, I agree. But think about this scenario: you are a Democrat (or Republican, if you prefer) who is talking to a friend who is a Republican (or Dem.) You know that there are many things your friend is wrong about (in your opinion). So do you constantly bring up those topics that you disagree on, or do you tend to avoid those in favor of topics where you have some common ground?

    For me, the answer is the latter. I think it's more effective in the long run to maintain the lines of communication. Or maybe I'm just a wimp who dislikes confrontation, I don't know.

    Ultimately, I think there's a role for both the in-your-face style of Dawkins or PZ, and for a more gentle approach that doesn't offend people so much.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Then you cherry-pick specific aspects of specific religions that you find non-scientific. To counter this, I only need to point out that there are people who are religious who DON'T believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that avatars of the gods are with us, or any of the other things you mentioned.

    I think I addressed this when I said:

    in this case, I mean "religion" to signify a collection of histories and dogma, rather than a vague notion of spirituality or our good old friend apophatic theology or anything

    It may be true that there is some "religion" in the sense of a collection of histories and dogma that doesn't contradict science in any way, but I have yet to encounter one. The closest I can think of is the beliefs of many secular Jews, who are agnostic or actively disbelieving in regards to ideas like a literal God (well, G-d in that case?), miracles, etcetera, and yet still honor religious observances and customs for cultural reasons, and place a high value on the several thousand year history of their people. This is a stretch, though, because 1) can you really call "secular Judaism" a religion -- especially since my wife and I practice a form of it despite being staunch antitheists?, and 2) there are serious doubts about the historicity of Moses and the various stories associated with the Torah, so one might even contend that a historical claim as modest as "the Jews escaped from Egypt and then wandered the desert" might arguably contradict with 'science', depending on how broadly you define the latter.

    It is my opinion that any "religion" which posits an afterlife or an active deity is necessarily incompatible with science (again meaning "incompatible" in a philosophical sense). And I hold doubts that any creed lacking either of those positions could reasonably be termed a "religion", but maybe someday I will be convinced otherwise.

    So do you constantly bring up those topics that you disagree on, or do you tend to avoid those in favor of topics where you have some common ground?...For me, the answer is the latter....Or maybe I'm just a wimp who dislikes confrontation, I don't know.

    No, I'm basically with you. I have praised that position in the past, and in some cases I have been known to even adopt that stance myself. Generally speaking, the only times I highlight my position that even liberal theology is in contradiction with a scientific worldview are when someone asserts otherwise. (I also may mention it in passing at other times, but it is generally not my focus)

    I've recently been talking to a co-worker who takes Christianity quite literally, but who gets a very positive message from it. In some ways, it has even liberalized his position on some topics, e.g. he changed his opinion to support universal healthcare after praying about it. In any case, our conversations have been quite interesting, and I've thought about blogging about it -- and if I do, that would definitely be an exploration of this "common ground" you are talking about. It's just the nature of this blog that it doesn't often explore the common ground (to build on your analogy, the author of a Democratic activist blog might try to find common ground in person, but would probably focus on Rep/Dem differences on her blog). But I agree it's there and shouldn't be ignored.

    Ultimately, I think there's a role for both the in-your-face style of Dawkins or PZ, and for a more gentle approach that doesn't offend people so much.

    You're totally speaking my language. Right on! :D

    ReplyDelete