I wish it were true that scientists had no problems updating their theories when faced with contradictory evidence. But unfortunately, we have a nasty habit of becoming so entrenched in what we believe to be “proven science” that anything that does not fit into that neat little paradigm often faces significant scientific resistance before it becomes accepted.

No matter how good the scientific method may be, it is only as good as the humans testing the hypothesis, and sadly, humans are inherently very flawed. There will always be intangibles that, as scientists, we must recognize that we do not know about or cannot currently understand. But more important that whether or not these hypotheses hold water or not, is how we react to them from a scientific standpoint.

I agree that faith and science are irreconcilable. But what I find interesting is how many otherwise scientific types go so far out of their way to try and disprove religious ideas, and how many religious folks try to find scientific backing for their faith. It is a pointless endeavor on both sides, one which you have willfully decided to engage in, in spite of the futility of it all.

Truly objective reasoning should tell you that the correct response to any ostensibly irrational theory can only be answered with an “I don’t know, because I have no way to measure that.” Any other answer actually makes you worse than the person proffering the irrational hypothesis.

To use a similar example, the existence of aliens, if there were a highly advanced civilization out there, and they really did not want us to find them, or learn of their existence, with the kind of technology they might have at their disposal, how would you expect anyone with our relatively limited technology to be able to prove their existence? It might be impossible.

So the only rational answer to someone who says that aliens abducted their goats would be: “I don’t know, I can neither prove nor deny that aliens exist at this time.” If you decide instead to call them an alien conspiracy nutjob, you must presume that aliens do not exist, and in doing so, you will have fallen prey to the fallacy that because you cannot prove they exist, they don’t.

Both beliefs involve flawed reasoning, so being mad at the farmer’s possible idiocy doesn’t make you any better than he is. This is why from a scientific standpoint, having respect for other hypotheses is important. You do not necessarily have to adopt them as your own, but you cannot make any other inferences about another based on that alone, and until you can empirically prove or disprove that hypothesis, you cannot take a position either way.

At least not if you are trying to be objective.

While I appreciate your frustration, you are missing the point of my post, and possibly how the scientific process works. When I talk about respect, I am not referring to people, or irrational acts. I am referring to applying a scientific approach to any hypotheses that you can neither prove nor disprove.

A hypothesis does not require proof in order to be proffered. The process of verifying or denying that hypothesis is the whole purpose of science. That IS the scientific method. This is why science bears the burden of proof. We start with unknowns, and calculated guesses, and attempt to empirically prove or disprove them.

This is not always a straightforward process, as many things cannot be directly observed, and must be inferred from other observable processes, technology allowing. So we are constantly hitting a glass ceiling regarding what we can and cannot measure. To forget this is to bias your interpretation of the results.

Asking “Have you seen God” is no better than asking “have you seen an quasar?” No. I have not seen God. But I haven’t seen a quasar either. Don’t know what either might looks like. Don’t even know how I would detect one or the other with the equipment available to me. Does that mean they both doesn’t exist?

The whole point of the scientific method is to test theories and prove or disprove them. Throughout history there have been many theories that have been deemed scientifically implausible until they were proven to be fact. So real science requires that we not dismiss any theory without taking this step, and in the absence of the ability to do so, cannot render a verdict upon it.

I have never argued that any scientist has attempted to reconcile religion and science. Some may have, others probably not. It doesn’t really matter. The two are irreconcilable.

I also believe that you underestimate the power that human emotions and desires have over science. Science, and the scientific process, in and of itself, is pure. However the people engaged in scientific research are not. Science is often affected by the emotions, motives and political agendas of others, just like religion. Because of that, it is not impartial, and does not affect both sides of any line as equally as you presume.

My point about beliefs based on flawed reasoning is sound. The farmer cannot presume aliens stole his goats, but in the absence of any kind of investigation, a scientist cannot presume an alien didn’t steal his goats either, just because it sounds ludicrous. Neither of them have sufficient evidence to support either position, regardless of how unlikely they may be, and they would therefore both be flawed in assuming either position.

Every scientific step starts with a hypothesis. A calculated guess. Some are sound, others aren’t. The hard work, the research, comes after the hypothesis, and they do not all require hard work of any kind. They are all simply calculated (or even un-calculated) guesses. A hypothesis may be implausible, possibly impossible, or even ludicrous, but to be offended by one seems irrational to me.

Here’s the thing. You both seem to be assuming that the moment a person embraces religion, they stop thinking. There is a fundamental flaw with that line of reasoning, since the ability to think is not dependent on a persons decision to embrace or reject any system of faith or religious beliefs.

It is entirely possible to have a critical thinker embrace a faith, simply because they recognize that science does not have all the answers they are looking for. As IRM correctly pointed out, many scientists who follow a religion do so for emotional, moral, or humanistic reasons, not scientific ones. And they are able to distinguish between the two. Which makes sense, since, as we have all agreed, science and religion cannot really be reconciled.

So it is possible, and indeed has been proven to be so by many critical minds throughout history, to be religious and yet still be a critical, rational thinker. Everyone seems to forget that religion is an interpretive experience. It is what one makes of it. You both have ideas in your heads about what religion is and how it will affect people, but you seem to be unable to envision other possible way it can be used.

That is a subtle form of functional fixedness. You have ignored the fact that not all religious people act in the mindless manner that you describe, and you are trying to make religion into something that it is not. It is not scientific. That is not it’s goal. That was never it’s purpose. So you cannot expect everyone to exhibit a scientific approach to it.

Some people are more susceptible to be mindless about it, but that is usually the result of the individuals propensity for mindless acceptance of things, not a direct result of their belief system. I’ve known many religious people to question their faith.

The truth is, you do not have to be religious to be sheep minded. I believe the real problem lies in the mindset of each individual, and how they choose to interpret what they presented with. The media, schools, sociocultural traditions, these are all equally flawed in many ways, and yet many accept all of the information they receive through these channels without question.

We all choose to believe in something. We choose to believe that what our colleagues and other scientists tell us about Life, the Universe and Everything (as Monty Python would say) to be true. We cannot perform these experiments ourselves, and we cannot verify any of what they tell us, but we believe in Science!(tm), so it MUST be true. Believe it or not, that is a BIG act faith on our part.

So I would not be so quick to accuse others of mindlessness, or the inability to think, before thinking about how much we have already accepted on faith ourselves.

Also, your definition of a hypothesis is flawed. A hypothesis need not be tested to be a hypothesis. A hypothesis is simply a theory. Nothing more, nothing less. It may be unlikely, implausible or otherwise, however whether it is actively being researched or not is irrelevant.

And even the idea of a “rational” hypothesis is one I would approach with caution. There have historically been too many hypotheses, that have been considered the equivalent of heresy in the scientific community, that actually turned out to be true, for me to rely on surface rationality. We simply don’t know what we don’t know. To presume otherwise is not particularly scientific.

I say we focus on what we can actually research and verify, instead of engaging in fruitless arguments over religious topics that we can neither prove nor deny. I guess I really don’t understand why a person who believes in logic and empirical testing would be bothered by someone deciding to believe that there is a God, in spite of the fact they cannot prove it.

It just doesn’t seem worth the energy.