I'm honestly not really sure which.
Actually, theists should not be so eager to be placed on the same playing field as science - and I'll explain in another article why that would be to their detriment.
Yet it remains popular, because it implies a parity between faith and science. If valid, it would provide a foundation from which theism could attack all aspects of science - beginning, in all likelihood, with science education. If the assertion were valid, the thinking goes, one could say that science should be considered no more "true" than the conflicting beliefs of whatever theism is being advocated.
What's really interesting to me about this argument is how it so dramatically illustrates the gap between science (and reason) on one side, and faith and theism on the other.
How can any theist actually think this argument strengthens their position?
Science, ironically, is to blame.
Integrity: Reason's biggest weakness
Consider a typical "origin" debate:
Science: We theorize that life evolved via natural selection.
Theism : And you know that for a fact?
Science: Well - no. It's a theory.
Theism : Well my religion has the truth: god made it happen.
Science: Come on, now - you don't know that's true.
Theism : Yes - yes I do! Do you know for certain that it's not true?
Science: No, I really do not know that for certain, either.
Theism : So you admit that it's possible.
Science: Mmm...yes, of course technically it is possible.
Theism : Well there you go. And it turns out to be true.
As comical as it may sound to some readers, this really isn't far from the arguments one hears for parity between science and religion.
The problem with it (of course), is that these two parties are using dramatically different definitions, and standards of measurement.
What kind of "knowledge?"
When a theist says they "know", what they mean is that they believe it. They feel it very strongly (whatever that means). They have scripture that says the same thing they are saying. This, in the un-logic of theism, is "knowledge". Christianity (for example) claims that you will gain "knowledge" of god through prayer.
That's right - knowledge. Through prayer. Not through evidence. Not through double-blind laboratory experiments. Not through mathematical proof.
That is clearly not the same kind of "knowledge" that science pursues.
When a scientist says they "know", that something is a "fact" - they mean a very different thing. They mean it has been tested by third parties, can be verified via multiple observational data, is consistent with the rest of the body of scientific knowledge, etc.
And most scientists are hesitant to ever claim final, unshakable knowledge of anything as fact. This is humorously illustrated by Richard Dawkins' acknowledgement of the theoretical possibility of fairies.
Science always reserves the possibility not only that any "fact" may be literally incorrect, but also that new data may well take strange, sometimes seemingly "impossible" forms. This is a key foundation of science, and it's one of the reasons it actually works.
No truly reasonable, logical person would probably ever assert that there "definitely is no" anything. Science, unlike the dogma of religion, thrives on revision.
Science needs its "open mind", meaning that *every* theory - always - will be "less than certain".
Theism's free throw
The problem is, theists hold themselves to no such high standards: In "faith logic", a concept of "personal truth" exists, which is equivalent -- and sometimes superior -- to empirical truth. For example, a common sentiment voiced in these positions is that theism is "true for me".
Religious suppositions can be considered "absolutely true", simply by virtue of having been written down, or declared by church leaders - or even just because the speaker "feels it in their heart."
Excuse me -- that's truth? Yes - for theism, it is.
One can't help but imagine theism in this debate as being the short, overweight kid with esteem problems to whom we give a "free throw". And in a way, that's really what's happening here.
Simply put, science has too much integrity to engage in the equivalent behavior of claiming absolute knowledge of things that it has not proven 100%. Even confronted with questions like "are you absolutely certain there is no god?", most good scientists can't logically reply with anything but "no, I am not".
And we will never will be.
Science will always throw the game to religion
Because logically, there will always be some chance that we'll discover new evidence confirming the existence of gods. Surely, it's got to be very very unlikely. Even more unlikely than fairies. But that is simply not sufficient to be considered "impossible".
That's how science works, folks.
And religion will always be happy to pick up that ball and make a run for the goal - with nothing more than unsupported claims.
Science has integrity -- the poor saps. ;)
