Science and Christianity

In the claims that it does make, science is outstandingly reliable. Our systemic use of observation to deduce patterns of reality has been honed over centuries. Science uses mathematically rigorous analysis of data and review by experts to separate reputable theories from crackpots. A consensus by the scientific community is not earned lightly. To dispute such a consensus on an ideological basis is intellectually dishonest. It is the worst of religion; using deception to exert control over the uneducated.

There would be no conflict if the Bible made no testable claims, concerning itself only with parables and philosophies (though we would perhaps still be wrestling with the misogyny, bigotry, and sense of entitlement it can easily be used to promote). But that's not the case. The Bible lists the age of the universe on the order of thousands of years. The entire creation story is full of holes if taken literally. The Bible strongly implies that the earth is stationary - and by some readings flat - while the sun revolves around it. It tells of a sudden recent global flood. The list goes on and on with testable (and disproven!) natural claims in the Bible. And there is an entire political movement that revolves around getting these stories equal representation in our science classrooms.

The analogy that comes to mind would be if science textbooks included passages where they claimed that Jesus was a prostitute, then, through legislation and propaganda, threw a tantrum on a national scale when Christians declined to include those lessons in Sunday school. As Asimov said, "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

It seems to me that if science and Christianity are to coexist in harmony, rather than acting as foils to one another, each must respect the expertise of the other. Christianity must defer to accepted science even if it conflicts with a claim made in the Bible. The idea that ancient texts can trump evidence when considering knowledge of the natural world is unacceptable. Relatedly, scientific cannon speaks nothing of the supernatural. It is certainly not a problem that some scientists are also outspoken on the topic but in those cases we must insist that our arguments be coherent and intelligible rather than ignorant and embarrassing.

Of course the reason that critique of science is different from critique of Christianity is that they're different kinds of knowledge. In a religious context, no matter what I believe, as long as I'm respectful and articulate my opinion gets a spot at the religious pluralism table. Others may even learn from me. In science there is a right answer and we drive towards it (see this story by Asimov to understand why science is valuable even if we're not right yet). We use peer review to drive towards consensus. Once we have a solid grasp of something - for example evolution, the basis for modern biology - significant evidence is needed to make an argument against it. This is just not the case when discussing faith,  as it's personal rather than evidence-based.

Another distinction is that Christianity makes explicit recommendations for how society ought to be run. There is a significant population that views the Bible as an infallible document mandating bigotry and misogyny. As a result there are those who speak out against religion as an institution. There isn't really an analogous situation with science; while being educated in science can help us make lifestyle choices, science itself is knowledge, not prescriptions. If you're educated in the underlying science you can critique the prescriptions; it's hard to do the same for Christianity without unraveling the faith structure.

Dawkins is probably the scientist most well known for speaking out against religion. He insists that we understand the universe well enough to posit the nonexistence of God. It basically comes from Occam's Razor. We have an understanding of the universe that does not require the existence of a creator God; in fact the existence of such a being with the power and will to suspend the laws of reality demands that we add significant complexity to our model with no supporting evidence. We are compelled to accept the least complicated hypothesis that can explain all observed phenomena. To me this seems like a very elegant argument, and about as sciencey as you can get when discussing something which by definition cannot be observed.

(The other side of that coin is the plausibility argument - there are an awful lot of parameters that have been tuned just right to allow life to exist in the universe. Had the speed of light, the matter/antimatter ratio, and the amount of dark matter in the universe been off by even a small amount from Big Bang parameters it's likely that we wouldn't have planets, much less life. This argument doesn't do much for me, though, as it's just the anthropic principle; if the universe weren't suitable for life, nobody would be around to notice.)

(Of course Dawkins is known not only for being an outspoken against belief in God in the abstract but also for opposing the effect of religion on society. That'll have to wait for another post, as it's certainly a deep topic. My favorite resource on the topic is a debate between Hitchens and Tony Blair.)

We can have conversations about God. And we can have conversations about science. But, no matter how important an ancient text is to you, it should only ever be a part of one of those conversations.

Centuries ago Galileo was ostracized for teaching a revolutionary new astrometric model despite that fact that it matched observations better than the church-approved model; centuries later that's still used as an example of the church's fallibility. Now the evangelical church is fighting to keep evolution and climate change - topics which have been well accepted by experts worldwide for decades - out of American schools while the rest of the world facepalms.