Can science disprove religion?

5/11/2015

I was lucky enough to get to share this story with my church this past Sunday after the service in a talk called “Faith or Science: Friends or Foes?” And now thanks to the world-wide-web, I can also share it with you!

Hi. It’s me, Anna. If we haven’t met, I’m a graduate student at Michigan State, studying prairies in the Ecology & Evolutionary Biology program. I don’t study evolution for my dissertation research, but I know a lot of people who do.

When I was a kid, there were a lot of Bible stories that just didn’t make sense to me. They weren’t realistic. This problem got worse as I got older and learned about things like evolution and archeology that would’ve, could’ve, should’ve verified these stories, if they were true. I have no memory of ever believing in Noah’s Ark or a seven day creation. Nobody ever told me I had to be a creationist to be a Christian, or that I had to be an atheist to be a scientist—I came to this conclusion all on my own. But I never liked those options.

I never voiced any of these doubts or questions out loud. I was a very shy and obedient child, and it seemed clear that I was supposed to believe what I learned in church without question. My friends and family seemed religious enough, judging purely on regular Sunday morning church attendance. I didn’t want to offend anyone. I didn’t want anyone to think I was (gasp) an atheist.

So instead I tried to reconcile these faith issues on my own. I liked the idea of God, so the closet-atheist option wasn’t appealing. I ended up deciding that the entire Old Testament must just be a collection of myths. That none of it really happened, and the “smart” people in the church all had to know this well-hidden secret but must also have an unspoken agreement not to talk about it, out of respect for the others. As you can imagine, my overall faith in Christianity was never that great. For the record, I also thought that you got to heaven by not sinning, that evangelizing your faith was an intrusion of other people’s privacy, and wished that people of other religions could just go to said-other-religions’-heaven when they died. I’m not sure I paid attention during confirmation class…

In retrospect, I realize that there was another reason I never asked any questions. I assumed there weren’t answers. I assumed if I asked a religious person to explain how Noah’s Ark could have been possible without leaving geological evidence, or how to reconcile evolution with the creation story, they would just have said “Don’t ask questions! God did it! The Bible says so!” While if I asked a scientist the same questions, they would have just said “sorry about your religion, dear, here’s the list of reasons why it’s made up.”

Fortunately, I am not the first, second, or hundredth person to have these questions and as it turns out, there are real answers that perfectly reconcile faith and science. People who study hermeneutics (aka the science of Bible interpretation) know exactly which parts are supposed to be interpreted literally and which aren’t, which parts have genuinely debatable translations, and which parts, when read with the authors' actual intentions in mind, actually conflict with science (spoiler alert: it's none of them).

I didn’t start asking these questions until the Origin Summit came to MSU last November. Embarrassingly recent, I know. This was a creationist conference, presented as a direct attack on MSU’s evolutionary biologists (read about it here, here, and here). My peers in my Ecology & Evolutionary Biology program responded as expected—there were many debates concerning how to respond, how to tactfully promote accurate science, and even whether to respond at all. Unfortunately, these nice conversations about the Summit often turned into rants about religion in general and how idiotic faith is in today’s modern, scientific world. How religion was made up thousands of years ago by people who needed a way to explain the world, but now that we have science, all those old beliefs are outdated. How every new thing we learn from science pokes another hole in religious thought. How if only Average Joe had a better science education, he would understand all of this and abandon his outdated beliefs and embrace The Capital-T-Truth, Evolution. Science is the answer!

Edit: [To be clear, these sentiments are not necessarily agreed upon by all or even more than a few of my biology peers. I do not mean to portray scientists in general as atheists or as being against all religion. Unfortunately, the small handful that did think this way were a bit outspoken, and therefore had a big impact on me.]

My personal faith was at an all-time high during this period, for unrelated reasons, but I still hadn't bothered to reconcile these other issues. I avoided these Summit conversations entirely, not just because I loathe arguments, but also because I didn’t have any counter-points to make. “You’re wrong! There is a God! I just know it!” wouldn’t have held much water (rightfully so). Plus, tensions were so high, I feel like I would’ve lost my biologist cred for even mentioning I was a believer.

Hopefully none of my friends or colleagues disown me now that I’ve “come out” as a Christian! Yikes…

A friend of mine made hand-outs for the Summit that had short bios of top-level scientists who are also Christians, plus a list of resources to consult about reconciling these faith-science issues. This was the first I had heard of such things. So I started reading.

(To that friend… thanks for never hating on religion. You’re the best.)

The faith-versus-science issue, of course, is way bigger than me not knowing what to make of my Sunday school stories and having a wimpy faith because of it. So many people have turned away from religion altogether "because of science" or because it's "so obviously made up." On the flip side, we hear things like the state of Florida banning the use of the phrase “climate change” by its employees. There are tons of people that are altogether anti-science in today’s world, and as far as I know, it can only be a religious issue. And it’s because people think their faith is being challenged by the things scientists say. I doubt many of them are sitting around the break room chatting with a bunch of 20-something atheist evolutionary biologists like I frequently am, so where does this idea come from? I blame one sentence.

Scientists who are also atheists will latch onto "Evolution happened, therefore there is no God" and use it essentially as atheist propaganda. They’ll say, look at all this evidence for evolution! Look at all the evidence we have that there is no God! Meanwhile anyone of faith hears this-- probably once in their life is enough-- and thinks, well, I know there is a God, so there must be something wrong with all that supposed evidence for evolution. So people fight over the evidence to protect their beliefs. Creationists have Origin Summits to present the “alternate evidence” and to try to discredit the mainstream evolutionary biologists. Even a person that knows they have little scientific knowledge will proclaim with total conviction that scientists are just wrong about their science. The biologists, then, try to fight back with more evidence. Or better science education. But it doesn't help.

No progress is ever made because the argument itself makes no sense. It makes no sense to use any scientific evidence from the natural world to make a claim about something that, by definition, is supernatural. The claim “there is no God” can in no way be supported by even an infinite amount of evidence for evolution. Faith questions and science questions are totally separate.

Faith, by definition, is a belief in something without concrete evidence. Emphasis on concrete. There are tons and tons of reasons why people believe in God. The reasons just aren't concrete in the way that science can test and observe things that are concrete. Science answers all of our questions about the natural world, and yes, there was a time when religion was also used for that. But just because that kind of religion is outdated doesn’t mean God is, too. God exists outside the laws of nature and can’t be disproven no matter how much science tells us about the Earth.

If you're an atheist and the only question in your "faith" category is "is there a God?" and the answer is a resounding no, it's still a faith question that cannot be supported with science. The reasons why you believe there is no God are just as non-concrete as the believer's. A real science-only mindset would actually be agnostic, not atheist, because it acknowledges that scientific evidence cannot measure supernatural things. A true "science-believer" would refuse to answer supernatural questions with any assurance. So not only is any “science… therefore atheism” statement wrong because there is a God, it’s wrong because you just can't answer faith questions with science.

Likewise, you also can't take a stance on a scientific issue with faith. The concrete evidence speaks for itself. We don't "believe in" climate change or evolution the same way we "believe in" God. We have to believe what the concrete evidence says until we have additional concrete evidence that tells us something otherwise. Ignoring the evidence is like trying to convince people a rock in your hand is actually a banana because God told you so. Everyone sees the rock in your hand, and even worse, it makes God seem like He's your delusion. Science-deniers, please stop making God look bad!

The Bible even tells us that faith isn’t science. Hebrews 11:1 says:
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

I like the way C.S. Lewis explained it, too. He said that looking for scientific evidence for God is "like Hamlet going into the attic of his castle looking for Shakespeare.” He’s just not going to find him. Does Hamlet believe in Shakespeare? I wonder.

Now, we do run into real trouble when scripture seems to actively contradict scientific evidence. When Genesis 1 and evolution don’t agree. When Noah’s flood doesn’t show up in global geological or fossil records, even though geologists and paleontologists know exactly what kind of mark it would have left on the globe. Since I grew up trusting science, my struggle was always understanding how a religion could possibly be true with these sorts of contradictions. Other people have the opposite problem, where they struggle to trust scientists because they’ve grown up reading the whole Bible literally. When these conflicts exist, either the Bible or the science has to be made up, right? Well, sort of.

There can only be one "truth." If God made the Earth, and scripture is the word of God, something is seriously wrong when theologians (studying scripture) and scientists (studying the earth) don’t agree. Unfortunately, theologians and scientists are just people, and people make mistakes. Both sides are eager to blame the other for any conflicts, and both sides have been known to make mistakes that shape common knowledge for hundreds of years at a time. When we get new information, rather than being eager to use it, we fight against it. People on both sides should be willing to re-examine their interpretation of the evidence, be it nature or scripture. But it’s hard to admit you’re wrong, especially when you’ve thought you were right for so long.

Maybe you agree with me, and so you decide to cut out all the middle-men. You become a scientist so you can expertly examine all scientific evidence yourself, and you ignore everyone else’s Bible interpretations and read it for yourself. Unfortunately, you’re still at the mercy of your English translation unless you also decide to learn Hebrew! Even the translation can sometimes misstep. Sometimes in big ways.

Let's look at a less controversial example-- one where both the science and the scripture needed a second look.

In about 1600, scientists, theologians, and even commoners all understood without question that the sun revolves around the earth. It was pretty obvious. If you go outside and stand still, you can watch the sun rise, move across the sky, set, and come back up again on the original side. Round and round it goes, while the earth stays still. If you read the Bible in 1600, it would seem to agree with you:

In Joshua 10:12-13, God makes the sun “stand still,” which implies it was moving in the first place.

In 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5; “The earth shall not be moved.”

In Psalm 19:6, “[The sun] rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other.”

In Ecclesiastes 1:5, “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”

So when poor Galileo (or was it Copernicus?) figured out the earth is actually moving around the sun, all the other scientists, plus the theologians, plus everyone else on the planet thought he was crazy/lying/incorrect/a heretic. Sound familiar?

Young Anna knew this story of Galileo and the Bible, which encouraged her writing-off of the entire Old Testament as a work of fiction. But taking the Bible literally and taking the Bible seriously are not the same thing. In fact, the most responsible true-to-God way to read the Bible is to read the different parts in the way they were meant to be read. Take Psalms, for example, listed above a few times. Psalms is a collections of prayers and songs—essentially, poetry. If I read you a poem that talked about the movements of the sun and stars, I hope you wouldn’t interpret it as an astronomy lesson. It’s not fiction or myth or something you should ignore, it’s just poetry. So you should read it as poetry. And appreciate its true message.

Not all of the Old Testament is poetry, though. But there are different reasons why it all makes sense. Here are some more of my old hang-ups, linked to their science-friendly (and God-friendly!) explanations that each deserve their own post (if they aren’t linked yet, they are coming soon!)

Seven-day creation
Adam & Eve
Noah’s Ark
Jonah & the Whale
How people lived to be so old in the Old Testament
Why fire-from-the-sky-level miracles happen all the time in the Old Testament, but not today
Why humans are religious—an atheist perspective from evolution

At risk of turning this into a science & faith blog, comment below or send me your questions! More things that could be fun to talk about include:

What’s the evidence for evolution, anyway?
How did people evolve?
Did eyes really evolve? I heard those are too complicated, so God must have made them.
What science do young-earth, literal-Genesis creationists teach?
What else do atheists say about religion, and what does the Bible really say about atheists?
Why do some people not believe in climate change?***
What’s the evidence for climate change, anyway?
Doesn’t the Bible tell us to “subdue” the Earth? Should we care about the environment?
Why we all need to stop talking about who is “brainwashing” who and listen to what the other side is saying

*** If you are a climate change skeptic or non-believer, please consider sharing your opinions on the matter with me! You can do so anonymously here. I am absolutely ignorant to this perspective (except that it exists, and is quite common), and I’d rather hear it from a real person than just Google it and get the most extreme viewpoint. Thanks!!

And remember, kids, the gospel is love. It’s definitely not who’s a sinner and who’s not, it’s not seven day creation, and it’s not evolution. It’s just love. We only need to focus on these other details when they are keeping people from experiencing that love.

Love,
Anna

Recommended reading:
Tim Keller, The Reason for God
Francis Collins, The Language of God
Noah Filipiak's blog, Atacrossroads.net
BioLogos website, especially "Common Questions"
1 Corinthians 1, 2 Corinthians 5, 1 Timothy 6

19 Comments

anonymous

5/11/2015 08:36:47 am

"Unfortunately, these nice conversations about the Summit usually turned into rants about religion in general and how idiotic faith is in today’s modern, scientific world. How religion was made up thousands of years ago by people who needed a way to explain the world, but now that we have science, all those old beliefs are outdated. How every new thing we learn from science pokes another hole in religious thought. How if only Average Joe had a better science education, he would understand all of this and abandon his outdated beliefs and embrace The Capital-T-Truth, Evolution. Science is the answer!"

If you had taken two seconds to actually participate in any of the discussions surrounding the Creation summit, you would realize this was NEVER expressed. Thanks for telling your church that we are all assholes.

Anna

5/11/2015 09:11:44 am

Dear Anonymous,
I do regret that last October I had absolutely no rebuttals to any anti-religion sentiments that were, in fact, expressed in my presence or to my face. I do not mean to give the representation that *all* of my peers were "assholes," however the points I chose to share were all things that I remember were actually said (except "The Capital-T-Truth" part). Maybe not by you, maybe by someone else when you weren't around. I will clarify in the post that this wasn't *everyone's* reaction to the summit, you're definitely right that that is misleading.
Best,
Anna

anonytitmouse

5/11/2015 09:12:37 am

Unfortunately, I've heard a lot of discussion that mirrors the sentiments shared by Anna in non-organized (as in non-"Summit-related") conversations around campus. I'm not trying to make a blanket statement about the thoughts of those at MSU (or elsewhere for that matter). I AM saying that I've witnessed this myself, though.

That being said, I've never piped up. Like I said, the discussion is usually unorganized and oftentimes when the topic is religion (or politics -- that's another popular one), I don't think it's addressed in as professional of a manner as it should be given that it's taking place in the workplace.

I think this is an interesting opportunity to take a step back and think about the things we say in front of the company we think we "know." I'm guilty of it and am sure I've made others uncomfortable with my ideas and opinions. I can probably be a ton better at it.

Noah

7/20/2015 03:20:10 pm

I was at the talk Anna did at her church, she never called anyone assholes or even insinuated that. She simply communicated that there was a wide spectrum of responses, she never clumped everyone together.

While I'm not sure of the exact definition of asshole, this line from someone who didn't even write their name and who used hyperbole and all caps, the internet version of shouting, is at least written pretty mean and I'd say not very helpful to a healthy conversation and dialogue: "If you had taken two seconds to actually participate in any of the discussions surrounding the Creation summit, you would realize this was NEVER expressed. Thanks for telling your church that we are all assholes."

Dani link

5/11/2015 09:23:00 am

Anna,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! That takes courage. :)

I'm using the "website" box for this comment to link to a book I read a few years ago. It's "Einstein's God," by Krista Tippett (who, imho, has one of the BEST female podcast voices around). The book is a collection of discussions about science and spirituality (or the "human spirit," to copy what the cover says). If I remember correctly, a lot of the discussion is about the "clash" between science and faith, and how that just might not make much sense.

Just in case the website thing didn't work: http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-God-Conversations-Science-Spirit/dp/0143116770

Bjørn Østman link

5/11/2015 09:56:24 am

> People who study hermeneutics (aka the science of Bible interpretation) know exactly which parts are supposed to be interpreted literally and which aren’t,

How do they know this?

5/14/2015 06:02:33 am

Hi, Bjorn! Hermeneutics involves comparing what's written on the pages of the Bible with historical/archeological information, other translations, and other texts (in the Bible or otherwise). As with any discipline, different Biblical scholars will have their own provisional opinions on what the "correct" interpretations are.

5/14/2015 10:56:03 am

I see. So they don't know it exactly, if there are different views, right?

There are thousands of Christian denominations that each have their own interpretations and opinions of what should be taken literally in the Bible. Many of those denominations read parts of OT literally (Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, some Catholics, and others).

Andy

5/15/2015 09:55:41 am

Saying scholars know "exactly" what to take literally is probably an overstatement. However, interpreting the Bible is an entire discipline (as has been mentioned). There are detailed arguments to be made for different points of view. They are not all equally valid. Anna makes a good case that God didn't give the exact details of universe-making in two pages.

The thousands of denominations and movements and churches agree on the vast majority of interpretation of the Bible. In Christianity the details of creation are not critical points, so disagreement on this subject is trivial in a practical sense.

5/17/2015 04:21:57 pm

> Saying scholars know "exactly" what to take literally is probably an overstatement.

Probably? Like, maybe they do know it but you are not sure?

> They are not all equally valid.

That should be communicated to the millions of Christians who read Genesis 1 literally. In the meantime we have to contend with their strong influence on culture and politics.

> The thousands of denominations and movements and churches agree on the vast majority of interpretation of the Bible.

Are you familiar with some of the different interpretation and beliefs of various denominations? Evangelicals who believe in reading it all literally, Jehova's Witnesses who don't believe in Hell, Mormon's who believe Jesus came to America, Catholics who believe Mary was a virgin, etc. etc.?

> In Christianity the details of creation are not critical points, so disagreement on this subject is trivial in a practical sense.

If those details are not critical, then why is creationism such a big problem in the US? Seems excruciatingly practical to me, with creationist meetings, fights over school textbooks, politicians who don't believe in global climate change, etc.

Anna link

5/17/2015 11:57:10 pm

"Exactly" is an overstatement just like we don't use "prove" in scientific writing. The evidence can strongly support an idea, but we don't throw around "this proves that." I should have been more careful with my word choice.

Also, I absolutely agree that this should be communicated with Christians. I presented the information in this blog post to my church twice, and hope to continue to explore the topic. I think the conflict between scripture and science is detrimental to people on both sides. I hope this came through in my post, as it was the main point. I hate that Christians have a reputation of science-deniers, when the problem is they may be interpreting the Bible incorrectly.

The specific examples of religions who believe in what I would call "add-ons" to Christianity are different issues. Those things are not in the Bible. The Bible gives us clues to when we should read it literally or not, the Bible talks about hell, the Bible does not mention Jesus coming to America, and all Christians agree Mary was a virgin (though the Catholics like to talk about it more). Please don't hold all of Christianity at fault when some denominations "go beyond" the scope of the Bible. I would make the same argument for Christian hate groups. "Christian hate group" should be an oxymoron because of what the Bible teaches... yet they exist. People are still people.

For why creationism is such a big deal to people, I would encourage you to go back and read this post. I explicitly outlined that when a person already is reading the Bible literally, they think evolution is an attack on their faith. Likewise many people like to use evolution as an attack on faith. I think both groups are at fault, and need to look at all the science and interpret it alongside what we know about Genesis. There should be no conflict.

I wrote an additional post about this issue specifically, http://www.annagroves.com/blog/believing-in-creation-believing-in-evolution

Hope this helps.

5/19/2015 05:07:24 am

> The Bible gives us clues to when we should read it literally or not,

It doesn't really always, right? I mean, there are no notes in Genesis 1 saying this part of allegory, or anything like that.

> all Christians agree Mary was a virgin

That's a translation error, and only became doctrine quite late in Christianity. (I won't hold the "true" Christians who don't believe this at fault.)

I'd be interested in knowing which parts of the Old Testament you believe literally, if any.

5/19/2015 10:36:15 am

Anna wrote two entire blog posts, which we're allegedly discussing, outlining reasons to not take this (tiny) part of the Bible literally. Do you disagree with any specific points she made? I thought she was rather compelling. She also addressed why creationism is such an issue and even re-addressed that point in a recent comment. Does her logic make sense? Do you believe her?

Regarding denominations, as Anna said, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not denominations. Neither is "Evangelicalism". "Evangelical" does not refer to a specific set of doctrines so "their" belief about the Bible is a non sequitur.

The Nicene creed affirmed a virgin birth in the 4th century AD. Is that what you mean when you say "quite late in Christianity"?

>If those details are not critical, then why is creationism such a big problem in the US? Seems excruciatingly practical to me, with creationist meetings, fights over school textbooks, politicians who don't believe in global climate change, etc.

Politicians not acting on climate change has nothing to do with the Bible and nothing to do with creationism. If someone tells you they are related, you're being tricked. If you're really worried about how Christians are voting you would be better off pointing out that God told them to take good care of the world. It's also helpful to dispel the myth that science is capable of commenting on the existence of God, an unsupported conclusion that has none-the-less been thrown around carelessly and has weakened some people's trust in what science is legitimately capable of.

5/19/2015 12:43:32 pm

I didn't know those details about the Nicene creed, and I haven't heard anything about a translation error re: the virgin birth (fill me in, or send me other sources, if you like!). For the Biblical reasons why Genesis 1 should not be interpreted literally (and no, it does not have an author's note with instructions, but I think we're smart enough to piece together the other reasons) you'll have to read my other post.

Anyway, as far as I know, the whole New Testament is considered literally true by all Christians, and here's what it says about the virgin birth:

Matthew 1:18 "[Mary] was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit."

Luke 1 "26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” 29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

I have no reason to believe this isn't true, or couldn't be true. Being a Christian does require believing in some level of miracles (i.e., things happening against the laws of nature). I have problems with a literal Genesis 1 or things like Noah's flood covering the globe because science either directly disagrees or exposes a blatant lack of evidence that something happened. Believing that just one single time in all of history a virgin gave birth to the son of God, and it was a direct act of God, isn't that crazy when you already believe in God! If you show me a paternity test from 0 A.D. that shows Joseph was actually Jesus' father, yes, I'd have to consider it. In general, I think Christians over-use "miracle" claims, which makes them seem less legitimate. "OMG, my friend is healed! It's an act of God!" can often be dismissed with a "sorry hun, your friend just experienced modern medicine." But that doesn't mean actual miracles *never* happen.

As for the rest of the Old Testament, I think *in general* it literally happened after Genesis 1(-3ish, Adam and Eve blur the line between metaphorical and literal). I'm reading through it for the first time right now, and I'll probably check back in with more blogs if I come across anything else ridiculous. I already know a few spots (e.g. Jonah being swallowed by a whale), which I plan to explore more (on this blog!) like I have Genesis 1 in my other post. I'm already planning a post about why things in general are different in the Old Testament-- like God is always talking to people directly and raining fire and such, which he clearly does not do today (but there are reasons, so stay tuned for the blog about that later). I used to think the whole Old Testament was fiction/myth for this reason (and others), so I'm totally with you on that question.

By the way, if you wanted to send me a long list of questions/issues you have with the Bible, I would love to do a whole post on it (or multiple posts). I've spent enough time ignoring all these issues and not knowing what I believed, and I want to know what both sides have to say for themselves. Like the virgin birth translation error thing-- I've never even heard of that, but I probably should know what the deal is, eh?

The climate change issue is huge. I don't really get it. I want to research it more. How much are religious beliefs involved (at least some, I have met actual people--Christians-- who don't believe in climate change) and how much is it just a money issue in politics? I don't know enough to comment on it now. I hope to learn more about it soon.

Seriously though, if you sent me a list I would love to post a "frequently asked questions" (because your questions are legit, and if I don't have answers already, I need to figure it out)! Then we wouldn't have to keep chatting on this comment thread :)

5/20/2015 09:54:09 am

> Do you disagree with any specific points she made?

I disagree very much with NOMA, for reasons many people have outlined before me. Rediscovering NOMA here does not make it compelling.

> Regarding denominations, as Anna said, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not denominations. Neither is "Evangelicalism". "Evangelical" does not refer to a specific set of doctrines so "their" belief about the Bible is a non sequitur.

I recall you making this point before, and if you want to dismiss the issue by semantics, then so be it. “Evangelical” is used to describe many different denominations, but in statistical surveys they are often lumped together. Feel free to continue to ignore that. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

Just one of many articles about “virgin vs. “maiden””:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/t/bible-edits-leave-some-feeling-cross/#.VVzv5dpVhBc

> Politicians not acting on climate change has nothing to do with the Bible and nothing to do with creationism. If someone tells you they are related, you're being tricked.

I am telling you that they are related. People of various denominations have expressed that because they will very soon be at the side of Christ, the rapture will come, the world will end, etc., and because they believe that the world is young and unchanging - directly as a result of their faith - then global climate change is not an issue. Individual politicians may have their own reasons for not wanting to act on climate change, but they can get away with it only because people are dumb enough to let them, by dismissing evidence in favor of faith. Just because you are ignorant of this fact doesn’t make it go away.
Like Anna, “I have met actual people--Christians-- who don't believe in climate change”.

> It's also helpful to dispel the myth that science is capable of commenting on the existence of God, an unsupported conclusion that has none-the-less been thrown around carelessly and has weakened some people's trust in what science is legitimately capable of.

Science can comment on anything that it can test in the natural world, and that includes many of the claims in the Bible, including the efficacy of prayer and the occurrence of miracles (which btw are the two prime reasons why the supernatural and the natural realms are not separate, i.e., why NOMA is wrong). All evidence points to neither of these two being real. There is no scientific evidence for any religious claims, and that absence of evidence is compelling (and of the same sort that we assess ordinary scientific claim, of course). If you profess to believe in miracles, then those miracles are (at least) in principle testable by the scientific method. Basically, there used to be so many miracles happening thousands of years ago, but nowadays, with the scientific method, not so much. None at all, if you follow the evidence. I find that very revealing.

> "OMG, my friend is healed! It's an act of God!" can often be dismissed with a "sorry hun, your friend just experienced modern medicine." But that doesn't mean actual miracles *never* happen

Is *always* dismissed by modern medicine. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

5/20/2015 10:23:56 am

If you don't think there is no link between support for acting on climate change and for evolution, then check this out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/20/this-chart-explains-why-faith-and-science-dont-have-to-be-in-conflict/

5/21/2015 12:41:44 pm

>If you don't think there is no link between support for acting on climate change and for evolution, then check this out:

See, that's not what I said. I said there's nothing about the Bible or creationism that prevents people from acting on climate change (or believing evolution happened for that matter). But, if there's nothing in the Bible to support the claims of those Christians you talk to, then where did they get those ideas from?

I think if faith-centered people don't believe in climate change and evolution it is because they were told (by scientists, by atheists, who knows?) that evolution and climate change mean their faith is wrong. Anna wrote a lot about why that's not true. I don't think it's true.

That's what this whole thing has been about. People don't doubt scientists because of the science, and they don't need to doubt science because of how it relates to the Bible. Unfortunately they have been told for a long time there is a conflict and now it's more about tribes than anything else.

This makes sense to me: I think some people badly want science to disprove faith. Unfortunately God, and the things you mentioned (efficacy of prayer, occurrence of miracles) are not testable scientifically. It shows a lack of understanding of the concept of God to think they are. It's much more productive to focus on why these things are not at odds and why caring about the planet is in line with God's direct commands. To try and use science to disprove God is to try and use science to do something it cannot do. This makes science look bad (rightfully so) and only gets in the way of your goal of having an impact on global climate.

This isn't about the existence of God, right? You just want people to lower their fossil fuel use etc.? Right?

5/21/2015 12:04:27 am

Alright, thanks for the links! I agree with you that there is "no scientific evidence for any religious claims"-- including the power of prayer and occurrence of miracles. I believe we are on the same page about everything but the existence of God, which I'm afraid we will not be able to settle here.

One of the main points of this blog post is that it is far more helpful (for political reasons, general science literacy, etc) to encourage religious people to understand how science is not at odds with their faith than it is to encourage religious people to abandon their faith "because of science." The latter goal is counter-productive, because it makes people choose between faith and science, and they will pick faith. Please see the point of this blog post for what it is, I am not trying to argue the existence of God. Emphasizing a faith-science dichotomy, even if it is your belief that they are at odds, will continue to turn people away from science. If you want to preach atheism, go ahead, but if you really care about science outreach to a general public, respecting people's faith (regardless of what it is) is important.

Emily

1/12/2016 11:41:37 pm

Great post Anna! I wish I would have seen this earlier! Have you seen this youtube video?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3Qvfm8jU0
Eugenie Scott does a great job of discussing why a belief in god does not contradict evolution. She admits that atheism is her belief and has nothing to do with science.

There is no experiment we can possibly do to test for the existence of god. No control, no replication, etc. Faith and science are about different things- and it would help everyone on both sides to understand that. Keep on preaching! :)

PLANT // PEOPLE