Emily, you suggest that “those who ask all reasonably intelligent people to hold science and non-belief on the same scale of importance” are making a mistake in alienating believers. But you and the ASA are asking us to hold science and belief on the same scale of importance. At some level both the ASA and atheists like Dawkins hold religious beliefs to be neither provable or unprovable. This doesn’t stop the ASA from using science to support religious belief. Why should it stop Dawkins from using science to support nonbelief?

You seem to be worried about causing religious people to feel alienated or threatened. Have you seen the hate-mail that atheists such as Richard Dawkins receives from believers? Can you imagine the battles over the teaching of evolution, global warming, and sex education in our schools from the perspective of nonbelievers? I am sorry, but speaking from this perspective, you seem to be blind to who is truly “threatened” and “alienated” in our society.

Josh, I am not confused. I completely understand that religious believers cannot submit their beliefs to the rigors of scientific methodology. However, science can say something about miraculous healings. It can disprove them, and has done so, in the case of countless charlatans bilking poor and desperate believers of their life-savings.

The unfalsifiable nature of religion does not show the “narrow scope” of science. As the past few centuries have shown, the scope of science grows exponentially.

No, the unfalsifiable nature of religion only shows religion’s complete lack of scope.

Mr. Quilter mentioned extending the principle of falsificationism to “religion.” I think this is somewhat confused. Science is based on our sensory experience. It has nothing at all to say about revealed knowledge as that cannot be either verified or falsified via empiricism. For instance, science can do nothing with the statement “God loves you.” Nor can it do anything with statements about miraculous healings. That fact, however, implies nothing whatsoever about the metaphysics undergirding reality. It’s just recognition of the narrow scope of science.

You say in an earlier comment that we should be “capable of allowing space for science AND belief.” Should we also be capable of allowing space for science and nonbelief?

Absolutely, as long as the “and” stays in place. The problem comes, I think, when people conflate science with a need to reject any idea that falls outside our ability to explain scientifically. As many have said before me, (paraphrased), we can’t explain our reaction to the beauty of a symphony scientifically, or why looking at a sunset makes us feel a particular way. Atheism and science are both valid ways of interpreting experiences in the natural world, but they are not the same way. The Reasons to Believe organizations and others like them are, I think, making a very harmful, unconscionable mistake in calling their interpretation of the Old Testament “scientific.”
But I also I think those who ask all reasonably intelligent people to hold science and non-belief on the same scale of importance, and who imply that accepting one necessitates accepting the other, are also making a mistake in alienating agnostics, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, etc from their point of view and their very worthy scientific ideas. If these religious people were approached by scientists who had more respect for their spiritual views, they would be far, far more likely to think about, and hopefully accept, what it really means to have an overwhelming scientific consensus on subjects like the age of the earth and anthropogenic climate change, among others. If these people stopped feeling so threatened by mainstream science, and instead appreciated the value of the work that’s being done, they’d educate their children in kind, and (i hope) we would live in a much more rational world. Where ideas like a 6000 year old earth and Newt Gingrich becoming president aren’t up for serious “discussion.”

“it’s as important for religious communities to regularly re-think and re-articulate their beliefs as it is for scientists to test and re-test every emerging theory.”

But there is an important difference between the critique of faith and the critique of science. A basic premise of the scientific method is that scientific theories are falsifiable. There are many scientific theories that have been falisified: the geocentric model of the universe, the miasma theory of disease, recapitulation theory, the emitter theory of light propagation, and the steady state theory of astronomy, to name just a few. When asked what could falsify the theory of evolution, J.B.S. Haldane famously remarked, “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.”

Do we extend this tenet of scientific methodology to religion? Perhaps you or Hess or the ASA would, if it came falsifying … say … a young earth interpretation of Genesis. That’s good.

But it seems you would stop short of applying falsification to something like the “miracle” of the “Virgin of Fatima”, out of concern for “shredding their [believers] intelligence in front of them”. Hess and the ASA, presumably, have less concern for shredding the intelligence of creationists.

What about falsification of Islam, Hinduism, or Christianity?

You say in an earlier comment that we should be “capable of allowing space for science AND belief.” Should we also be capable of allowing space for science and nonbelief?

You seem to be suggesting that we should only find common ground between science and religion. Scientific ideas, of course, are subject to critique on a constant basis – that is, in fact, how science works – both professionally and anecdotally. To critique religious ideas, however, in your estimation, is a sign of intolerance?

In this article:

“For Peter, it’s as important for religious communities to regularly re-think and re-articulate their beliefs as it is for scientists to test and re-test every emerging theory. “Both cherished formulations of faith and seemingly solid ‘laws of nature’ are subject to revision,” says Peter. “In my theological understanding, it’s not a matter of God being either always in process or always static and immutable; rather, it’s a matter of the human experience of God being constantly shifting

I appreciate your comment, but I feel like a more careful reading of the piece would have created more reason to dialogue.