Intellefundies like to claim that Science does not contradict religion in any way. Here is a typical intellefundie comment on the subject, this one courtesy of Charlie Hall on Cross-Currents:
Science is limited to addressing matters that are amenable to empirical verification, and thus is a potential threat to religion only to the extent that a religion’s basic precepts are empirically verifiable. Science is therefore no threat to Judaism as only one of the Rambam’s 13 principles — the eighth — is even theoretically subject to empirical verification, and a practical verification of even that one is impossible. Judaism also has a long tradition of non-literal interpretation of its sacred texts so even an actual disproof of the most straightforward literal meaning, which of course has happened for parts of Sefer Bereshit, is no challenge to our tradition. As a scientist I have no difficult in reciting, “Ani maamim….”
This is of course wrong, for multiple reasons. The main mistake that Charlie Hall is making is that he is confusing Scientific Knowledge with Scientific Method.
It is true that Scientific Knowledge does not inherently contradict the ikkarim. Most of the ikkarim are about God, or about Nevius, or about the future. There is no Scientific knowledge on these topics, because they are beyond the bounds of science.
However the Scientific Method certainly does make committed belief in the ikkarim quite ludicrous. The Scientific method informs us that the most reliable way to gain information is to follow the evidence, take the most resonable, unbiased, objective conclusion, create testable hypotheses, subject your theories to peer review, and be fully open and willing to change your theories if someone else comes up with a better theory. The ikkarim fulfil none of these conditions.
In addition you have Scientific techniques and guidelines such as Occams Razor and similar. The most reasonable explanation of Judaism, all things considered, is that it is a religion like all the others, and most likely untrue. This is the conclusion you would inevitably reach were you to follow the Scientific Method.
Charlie Hall, being a Scientist, should know that.
But of course Charlie is only capable of 'being Scientific' in the realm of the physical universe and the laboratory. When it comes to religion, his emotions and desires take control of his thought process, and he is no longer capable of 'being Scientific'. Instead, he allows his subjective feelings and desire for his religion to be true to over-ride the obvious fact that all religions are ancient mythologies, which only survive though intense indoctrination of their children from a very young age, Baal Teshuvahs notwithstanding.
Possibly, Charlie will argue that Science works well in the realm of the physical universe, but when it comes to the spiritual universe, Science won't work, and you need something else to find the truth, such as religion, or your soul, or something like that.
I am entirely fine with that argument, as long as you can show that there is such a thing as a 'Spiritual Universe', and more importantly, that religion is a reliable way of discovering the truth about it.
But of course Charlie can't do that, since there is no solid evidence of a spiritual universe, which is exactly why Science can't touch it. And furthermore, all the various religions disagree violently on spiritual truths, and therefore clearly religion isn't even a reliable method of discovering truth about the spiritual universe, never mind the physical universe.
Science says 'Here is a theory, we think it's true, based on all this data. But if you come up with different data and a better theory, we will change'.
Religion says 'Here is what you must believe, based on ancient tradition. If you believe otherwise, you're may be going to hell'.
Since 90% of the planet would trust their lives to 90% of Science (and that's a conservative estimate), and 90% of the planet are passionately convinced that 90% of all religious belief claims are wrong (except of course those of their own sub-sect of their own sect of their own religion), I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Science seems spectacularly successful at establishing generally agreed upon provisional 'truth', while in contrast, Religion has been spectacularly unsuccessful at establishing truth. Nobody argues on this.
While this is not inherently a conflict, any reasonable person would conclude that Scientific beliefs are generally reliable, whereas religious beliefs are not, unless you have some exceptionally strong data and evidence. Since almost all the data and evidence I am aware makes the claims of fundamentalist religion, including Orthodox Judaism, look highly unlikely, and since we know that in general religions are false, I see no reason to assume that contra all evidence, this particular religion is true.
As a normal, reasonable person, I have great difficulty in reciting 'Ani Maamin', and as a Scientist, Charlie Hall should kal vechomer have the same problem. Why doesn't he? Because like all Intellifundies (not the fake ones) he's not capable of being either objective or honest when it comes to his religious beliefs.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
