Science cannot be used to disprove the supernatural, Massimo Pigliucci, a professor at Stony Brook University, said in a lecture on scientists "misspeaking" about religion given in Filene Auditorium on Thursday evening.
Pigliucci, a professor of ecology, evolution and philosophy, said that the conflict between science and religion is controversial because it deals with differing definitions of life. This is why debate about Darwinism is often popular, as opposed to discussions surrounding quantum mechanics, he said.
"First of all, no one understands quantum mechanics, and everyone thinks they understand Darwinism," Pigliucci said.
Criticism of religion by scientists is often faulty, Pigliucci said. To prove his point, Pigliucci cited the book "The God Delusion" (2006) by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins tries to scientifically prove that the existence of God can be refuted. Pigliucci agreed with Dawkins' finding that some events in the Bible, such as Noah's ark, have been disproved by geologists. Those arguments are insignificant when examining mainstream Christianity, Pigliucci said, which views the Old Testament as metaphorical, not as a textbook.
"How can you use science against a metaphor?" he said.
Pigliucci also criticized Dawkins' assertion that it is illogical to believe a "complex universe came from an infinitely complex being," which is based on a theory Dawkins calls "the argument of improbability." Dawkins uses this theory to argue that the chances of this are slim, based on the circumstances.
Pigliucci believes this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one, he said. As a result, it cannot be used to refute the existence of God.
Science will never explain the supernatural because in most cases, science has no way of disproving religious beliefs, he said.
The intersection of science and religion explains the stubbornness of people's beliefs, Pigliucci said. He said scientific and religious communities are often unable to compromise because most people lack the ability to be objective and think critically.
"Critical thinking does not come naturally to human beings," Pigliucci said. "Our instinct is to jump on what's told to us as children."
The problem is that critical thinking skills need to be learned, he argued. Once people reach the university level, when the opportunity to learn is offered it is much too late. This makes people less likely to think deeply about the opinion of others, he said.
Marites Guino-o, a research associate in Dartmouth's chemistry department who attended the lecture, said in an interview after the event that she was intrigued by Pigliucci's discussion of the dichotomy between science and religion.
"I am not particularly religious, but I believe in some things," she said "I usually don't mix the two together."
Scott Smith, a local attorney, thought Pigliucci's integration of religious and scientific views seemed to be one sided in favor of science, he said. Smith said he thought Pigliucci's portrayal of evangelical fundamentalist Christians was "extremist, stereotypical and to some degree, untrue."
"It is a stereotype perpetuated by media," Smith said. "The other, more quiet side of it, doesn't get any attention."
