Religion and science

A question arises as to whether religion is compatible with science. Creationists argue, or at least believe, that science undermines religion. Are they right? In a word, yes. This is not something that many liberal opponents of intelligent design, and other forms of pseudo-science, want to hear. Typical is the following statement, from a post on Panda's Thumb:

"This statement [by a creationist] confuses scientific knowledge with metaphysical belief, and in doing so it creates a false dichotomy between the idea that something can be explained by natural causes and the idea that something was caused by God. Millions of Christians and other religious people do not accept this dichotomy because they believe that God acts through natural causes."

And further:

"This argument is the Wedge in action: if you are really for God you will reject science. However, this argument is proven false by the religious beliefs of millions who do not believe that causes are either natural or 'designed,' but rather believe that both nature and God are involved because God acts through natural causes: many agree with St, Augustine that 'nature is what God does.'"

How to make sense of such a statement? What does it mean for God to act through natural causes? If the term God is to have any meaning at all, it must refer to something supernatural, something outside of the law-governed process of material development at all its different levels (physical, chemical, biological, social, etc.). Otherwise, the term God is vacuous, for it refers to nothing other than nature itself. This is of course the God of Spinoza, which is to say no God at all. When ordinary people speak of God, they mean a supernatural being, which is associate with such things as the (supernatural) act of creation; the provisioning of divine grace; the worker of (supernatural, unexplainable) miracles; the bearer of the immortality of the soul. If God is none of these things, he is nothing. All one has left is the convenience (or comfort) of the term, which rational and thoughtful people would do well to cast away.

But the minute that one accepts the idea of a supernatural being, something acting outside of natural law, one undermines the foundation of all science. Any scientific explanation can be held to be true only insofar as one accepts that it is possible for science to arrive at the truth through a rational examination of natural law. If a being is taken to exist that operates outside of this law, then science can make no claim to truth.

Here, many would like to make the distinction here between "philosophical naturalism" (or "metaphysical naturalism") and "methodological naturalism." For example, we have the following from the book, The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney:

“Philosophers of science distinguish between ‘methodological naturalism’—sciences’ procedural approach to studying nature by assuming that continuous causal processes occur without supernatural intervention—and ‘philosophical naturalism,’ the atheistic conclusion that the supernatural doesn’t exist at all. Methodological naturalism can be justified on purely pragmatic grounds—it works. Indeed, it allows researchers of all religious beliefs to meet on common ground. Philosophical naturalism, in contrast, goes beyond scene into the realm of metaphysics. Science, which studies only the natural world, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural or God. And wisely, it doesn’t try…The truth is that science isn’t necessarily at war with religion at all, although the ID movement certainly does seem to be at war with modern science.”

Thus the idea is that science assumes, for entirely pragmatic purposes, that there is no God, however it makes no philosophical claim to the non-existence of God. The problem is that one can make no claim to truth on this basis. According to this logic, science may work ("methodological naturalism can be justified on purely pragmatic grounds"), but that doesn't mean that it is true. Evolution may well explain the history of life, however...things might just as well have been put here by God. With this sort of argument, one simply opens the door half way to religious nonsense. One can only claim that evolution and all science contains truth if one accepts what is here called "philosophical naturalism" but what would be better termed--materialism; if one accepts that there is no god. Thus science undermines religion. Very good. Let's be done with religion.