Given that Sam Harris’s attempt to establish the incompatibility of science and religion has failed, let’s next turn to Sean Carroll’s attempt. Since Carroll is more of a scientist (a physicist at Caltec) than Harris, maybe we’ll get something more solid.
Science and religion are not compatible. But, before explaining what that means, we should first say what it doesn’t mean.
It doesn’t mean, first, that there is any necessary or logical or a priori incompatibility between science and religion. We shouldn’t declare them to be incompatible purely on the basis of what they are, which some people are tempted to do. Certainly, science works on the basis of reason and evidence, while religion often appeals to faith (although reason and evidence are by no means absent). But that just means they are different, not that they are incompatible. (Here I am deviating somewhat from Coyne’s take, as I understand it.)
Very good. He starts off by undermining one of Coyne’s central assumptions. It is crucial to note that different does not mean incompatible.
The incompatibility between science and religion also doesn’t mean that a person can’t be religious and be a good scientist. That would be a silly claim to make, and if someone pretends that it must be what is meant by “science and religion are incompatible” you can be sure they are setting up straw men.
Here Carroll is wrong. The response is perfectly appropriate and valid given the definition of “incompatible.” Let’s define incompatible, shall we? Type the word into Google and this definition pops up:
(of two things) so opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together.
Yep, that is how I would define it. And clearly, since a person can be religious and be a good scientist, their religion and science are NOT so opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together.
This brings us to a core problem with the New Atheist assertion – they never define “incompatible.” If Carroll doesn’t like people pointing out that a person can be religious and be a good scientist, then he needs to make it clear he is defining “incompatible” is some esoteric manner and then spell out his definition for all to see.
What’s more, if a person can be religious and be a good scientist, what exactly is the point of the incompatibility argument? It would appear you could defeat it with two words:
Carroll: Science and Religion are Not Compatible
Response: So what?
Carroll seems to think it very important that Science and Religion are Not Compatible, yet he never explains WHY it is supposed to be important.
Ran outta time, so let’s turn to his core argument next.