Richard Carrier: What is your definition of faith?

Victor Stenger: Faith is when you believe something despite the lack of evidence and even in the face of contrary evidence.

Carrier: Don't we accept science on faith?

Stenger: I often hear people make the argument that in order to believe in the results of science we have to have faith that the universe is rational and that empirical data are a reliable source of information about the world. In fact, we do not accept science in faith. We accept it on trust. And we have trust in science because we have seen how well it works in helping us understand the universe and cope with life. If science did not work, we would not do it. Religion does not work, but we still do it.

Victor J. Stenger (Photo Credit - Mitch Marmorstein Studio M Photography)

Carrier: Weren't many great scientists such as Galileo, Newton and Kepler devout believers?

Stenger: In those days you didn't have much choice. What's more, at the time science was not recognized as a discipline distinct from philosophy. It was called natural philosophy. It wasn't until the Enlightenment, which grew out of science, that it began to be recognized that science and theology had incompatible ways of looking at the world.

Carrier: Aren't many of today's scientists believers?

Stenger: Yes, but no more than 30-40 percent among all those who call themselves scientists. In the case of members of the National Academy of Scientists, the elite of American scientists, a 1998 poll showed that only 7 percent believe in a personal god. Those scientists who are believers have compartmentalized their brains so that they leave their critical thinking skills at the door when they go to church on Sunday and then pick them up on the way out to use them the next day when they go back to the lab.

Carrier: Didn't Christianity contribute to the development of science?

Stenger: That's a frequently heard claim that does not agree with the historical facts. The Greco-Roman world was well on the way to modern science until Christianity took over the Roman Empire and suppressed all forms of freethinking for a thousand years in the period 500-1500 called the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages ended only after the Renaissance and Reformation undermined the Church's authority so that, science was once again able to flourish. During that period the Islamic empire preserved ancient scientific knowledge and expanded upon it. However, Islam could not handle the dramatic changes in thinking brought about by the scientific revolution.

Richard C. Carrier

Carrier: What is it that makes religion and science so different, that makes you say they are incompatible?

Stenger: First, they have incompatible views on our sources of knowledge about the world. Science bases its knowledge on observation and sees no reason to assume any other source. This method has proved very successful. Religion bases its knowledge on divine revelation, which, has proved to be uniformly unsuccessful.

Carrier: What about near-death and other religious experiences? Aren't they evidence for a nonmaterial soul?

Stenger: No. None of these experiences have resulted in the revealing of new, verified knowledge that could not have been in the head of the experiencer all along. Plausible natural explanations exist for these phenomena.

Carrier: How can particles alone explain "spiritual" feelings such as love since they are not properties of the particles themselves?

Stenger: Water is wet, yet hydrogen and oxygen do not have the property of wetness. Wetness, along with color, taste, and so-called "spiritual" feelings such as love are secondary qualities that emerge when large numbers of particles aggregate into groups and interact with one another in the brain.

Carrier: Why don't you think we should try to work with believers to make a better world for all?

Stenger: Because belief itself is a destructive force in society when that belief is based on magical thinking rather than empirical evidence. Consider the recent campaign against birth control by Catholics and conservative Christians, and their continuing opposition to women's choice, gay marriage, and stem-cell research. None of these are based on science and reason. They are the consequence of unsupported faith. Working with believers, no matter how moderate, would just encourage more magical thinking. We have every right to challenge such thinking rather than continuing to give it a free ride for fear of antagonizing believers. Religious claims should be subjected to the same critical analysis that is applied to every other extraordinary claim, including those in science. We need to cut to the core of religious belief, which is foolish faith. Only when society is no longer dominated by policies based on nonsense can we expect humanity to thrive.