Keller takes a lot of time in this section, but it boils down to one claim, that Christianity is compatible with science. He cites for evidence of this a survey of scientists in which 40% responded that, yes, they believe in a god who communicates with humans in some way. Keller admits that there are forms of religion that are in conflict with science, but none the less argues that it does not have to be so, citing Ian Barbour’s four possible relations, conflict, dialogue, integration, and independence. Several prominent scientists are also held up as examples of scientists who are also Christians, or at least believe that religion and science are not in conflict.
One of those examples is the philosopher Nagel, who I will use as a jumping off point for my reply to this section. He is quoted as saying,
“I believe the project is doomed [reductionism] — that conscious experience, thought, value, and so forth are not illusions, even though they cannot be identified with physical facts.”
This is treading very close to a god of the gaps argument. He lists things that are not currently understood well by science, asserts that they cannot be (and that they exist) and therefor that they are in the domain of religion. What will he do when science does understand those things better? This is the issue with a god of the gaps argument. In the the past people like Nagel could have included the motion of the planets, the weather, and the origin of humanity on the list of topics off limits to science, relegated to religion. In the future people of this mindset will have to make an even smaller, even more specific lists. If we follow the trend lines to the truth, we conclude that this line of reasoning is invalid.
Worse than invalid, it is destructive. Removing from the realm of science various subjects greatly reduces scientific progress in that subject. There is much historical evidence for this in practically all fields. If people believe that a question cannot be answered be science, then it probably won’t be. Similarly, if people believe a question has already been answered by religion, and that that is sufficient, then it is unlikely to be explored scientifically. These are two reasons why science truly is in conflict with religion.
Science is a methodology for understanding the universe. Religions, at least most of them in the present time, are doctrines that make claims about the nature of the universe. As such, they are in conflict. Science cannot tolerate any information about the universe it does not verify itself, so it cannot accept any claims of religion. A person thinking scientifically will, therefor, have to ignore any religious claims, and therefor not be religious. Further conflict arises when science investigates a claim made by a religion and disagrees. If religions are not willing to alter their claims about the universe in the face of evidence, then they will be in conflict with science’s claims.
To address Keller’s examples of scientists who believe in god, this is not good evidence of a lack of conflict. Individuals are often internally conflicted. Individuals are also adept at compartmentalizing and self deception. As a person, even a scientist, it is easy to think that god exists and affects the universe, just not where I’m looking. But if everyone is doing that, then were is god? If you look at the big picture, there is no escaping the conflict between science and religion. This is true by their natures, and is not up to a vote.
This is all religions as they are today. Some are much better, like, I believe, Buddism, which changes to fit the evidence. Any religion that does this will end the conflict with science. All claims it makes will be modified, at least implicitly, to read “unless science proves otherwise” which will put them firmly in the independent or integration category of relationship with science.
Keller also mentions the role of media in this issue. On this, I agree with him. The apparent conflict between science and religion is greater than the actual one because of the media’s need for conflict in it’s stories. For most people, most of the time, there is no meaningful conflict between most religions and science. Some very conservative or fundamentalist religions, this cannot be said for, however. Keller also mentions the conflict model as some sort of secular conspiracy theory strategy in the early 20th century. This sounds far fetched to me, though he doesn’t go into it in enough detail for me to know precisely what he means. Fortunately, it matters not to the core issue.
Ultimately, there is no escaping a conflict between religions, at least as they are known today, and science. Science will ever increase in it’s explanatory power, and make religion less and less relevant. Science may never explain everything to the satisfaction of everyone, but this is immaterial. So long as science continues to explain more and more things better and better, the need for religion, at least in the explanatory capacity, will reduce. Until religions give up on the explanatory area of their nature, the conflict will remain. Maybe Keller and I agree on this, but only if he redefines Christianity to these criteria.