Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Quote of the Day: "As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk"

Jerry Coyne at "Noorfest", Duke Univ...                                  Image via Wikipedia
As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it’s not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science. -- Jerry Coyne, 2010, ardent darwinist and atheist, quoted here.
Science uses methodological naturalism, which means that it looks for natural explanations for natural phenomenon. When it looks for natural explanations for un-natural phenomenon, it is the wrong tool doing the wrong task. When it denies that supra-natural phenomenon exist, it goes beyond the bounds of legitimate scientific inquiry into unscientific metaphysical assumptions. Therefore, Coyne, in stating science as the ultimate and all-sufficient epistemological tool, presupposes that the sum total of reality is naturalistic. Problem is, this is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one.

So, if reality consists of more than the merely material, this makes science not a search for truth, but a search for ultimately false explanations.  As someone said, "if the only tool in your toolkit is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail".

And that is the problem with science wedded to atheism.
Enhanced by Zemanta


Anonymous said...

Someone tell this man that science has invented tooth paste, and religion makes to claim to it, so he is free to use it.

Anonymous said...

if a scientist produced life or stimulated life in a lab by definition it would be intelligent design.

Joe said...

If indeed Science and Faith are incompatible it only because Science is too close minded. Because it mandates itself to rule out any explanation beyond "natural" it defeats itself when "natural" is not sufficient.

Chris Cavanagh said...

You state: "When it looks for natural explanations for un-natural phenomenon.." Science is a process that looks at a lot of natural phenomena, tests them, and if they pass they are added to our knowledge store and are developed into technology. It also looks at claimed 'unnatural' phenomena and if found to have substance, great. If not, the claims are posted under superstition. And that is why simple logic and science have cast off religion as simply mass superstition, mass franchised for the benefit of a few and the mental subjugation of the many. Tested, found wanting, and now, preferrably ignored. The ultimate acid test is how much has religion added to the benefit of the world and how much has science?

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"