Whenever I post something like this, about how in direct opposition science and religion are, there’s always some fool who comes along to insist that they “believe” in both science and religion, so yes, they absolutely can coexist.
They pop out words like “metaphysics,” which is a form of philosophy, not a form of physics, and is therefore limited to mental exercises of what might be, not what is. Or they pop out “non-overlapping magisteria,” which is really just a phrase to pretend that things that don’t exist in the real world can be regarded as as a different type of “real,” other than real-in-reality, and therefore expect the same recognition as things that do. It’s a way to leverage Special Pleading (a fallacy) to insist they’re immune from the Burden of Proof everything else is subject to. They describe things as being beyond science, and outside human detection or experience. And then act like they don’t sound like complete clowns who’ve already negated their entire proposition.
They ramble about earlier scientists being religious. Ignoring the fact that religion held societal power, and thus anyone who expected to continue to retain their professional and academic standing needed to declare their religiosity, whether it was true or not. Ignoring that the church pursued science expecting to have its superstitions affirmed, and concealed results that were theologically inconvenient, and threatened those who discovered them (see: Galileo).
By then an old man of 69 who in his defense referred to his "pitiable state of bodily indisposition," Galileo was charged with "vehement suspicion of heresy." He had to renounce "with sincere heart and unfeigned faith" his belief that the sun, not Earth, was the center of the universe and that Earth moved around the sun and not vice versa, as ecclesiastical teaching dictated.
-- “Galileo vs the Pope” by Hal Hellman, The Washington Post (Sept 9, 1998)
Ignoring the overrepresentation of irreligious scientists in the modern day, compared to the general populace, as science has broken away from its primitive roots and outgrown its parent. And certainly ignoring that there isn’t a single one of these religious scientists who has been able to test and validate the superstitious claims of their religion, despite being the most qualified of all to do so -- and if they can’t, then what makes the garden variety religionist think they can, or that non-believers should accept what even an expert has not been able to justify?
They misrepresent Einstein, and name-drop or even quote other religious scientists, none of whom have ever used their religion to find new scientific discoveries, nor used science to justify the magical claims of own religion, or any of the others. Despite being the most qualified of all to do so. This appears to be aligned with the construction of their superstitious beliefs, which rely entirely on quotes and storytelling, and not on evidence or substantiation of any variety.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
-- Albert Einstein, ”Albert Einstein the Human Side” (1981) by Helen Dukas.
They say things like “can science explain X?” and when our knowledge about the everything of the universe inevitably comes up incomplete, then claim it is answered by their science-avoidant thing. Which is like saying that because I don’t currently own a car, I can never own a car, therefore an invisible, immaterial, undetectable flying Santa sleigh exists. Because their belief in Santa is not constrained by needing to be real in reality as as the limiting factor of mere science. But you can’t solve a mystery by invoking an even greater mystery.
This, of course, sometimes results in the claim that “you worship science!” or “science is your religion”. Science is, of course, simply a method for discovering, explaining and predicting reality with as little bias and error as possible. If there was a better, more accurate way, we would use it, but its present success is demonstrable by all the modern everything around even believers. What this means is that this is code for “you worship reality” or “reality is your religion.”
Or they may say that “you don’t understand science!” when the science you don’t uncritically accept is their bullshit strawman version that they think supports their superstitions, but is merely their attempt at a Middle Ground fallacy to prop up ideas they should have already discarded. Which means they are, by definition, not doing science.
Or accuse you of being “close minded.” Open mindedness enables an idea to be entertained, but does not obligate one to accept it. It’s not “open minded” to accept an idea as “true” uncritically, without good reason, good evidence, good justification. And it’s not “close minded” of anyone, or science, to reject an idea believers will not, and seemingly cannot, substantiate. It’s not the skeptic’s fault that the believer can’t justify their claim. Indeed, it’s inevitably the believer who is close minded, as they can’t and won’t entertain the notion that they’re wrong and that there could be another explanation.
“Faith” is close mindedness.
Science: If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong. If you don't correct those mistakes, you're doing it really wrong. If you can't accept that you're mistaken, you're not doing it at all.
-- Richard Feynman
What they demonstrate is that it is they who do not understand science. Science explores specific propositions, not vague, poetic ones. They must be testable. They must be defeasible. They must be falsifiable. They must be replicable. It uses evidence. The evidence must be tested to both confirm and disconfirm (falsify) the proposition (e.g. a control group). Although it may propose possible implications, it must not draw conclusions beyond its evidence, testing and results. Those conclusions are tentative and subject to testing, confirmation and refutation by others, and revision or withdrawal as a result.
Religion works the opposite way. You start with your conclusion and then try to find evidence that props it up, seeking only verification - through poetic interpretation or outright misrepresentation - and never seeks falsification. The scripture insists that the god claim is untestable - not only can you not test it, you’re forbidden from even trying. Falsification is not acknowledged or honestly addressed. What revision there is consists of the panicked look on a believer’s face when they discover what their scripture says that they didn’t know, and the hasty post-hoc rescue “it’s a metaphor!” When no evidence exists, the belief is supported by faith. When faith results in contradictory and incompatible conclusions, more faith is added to conclude that their faith is the right faith.
“Could anything convince you that your conclusion is wrong?” “Yes, evidence.” ← this is science. “No, nothing.” ← this is faith, and believers are proud of it.
It doesn’t matter if you can find a way to make the religious mythology fit the scientific reality. That’s not the point. The problem is that these are incompatible ways of determining truth.
In order to find truth, you must risk being wrong. The religionist does not accept this as an option, declares themselves to be “right” on no grounds whatsoever, and thus truth surrenders to comfort and the emotional satisfaction of “dearly held” belief.
The religionist who insists they “believe” in both science and religion is not evidence that science and religion are compatible. They’re evidence that cognitive dissonance is a real thing, and that people can rationalize their way through inconsistent skepticism, inconsistent standards and inconsistent beliefs.
