PZ Myers puts some common defenses of religion to bed.
I just came across this older (but still relevant) piece by PZ Myers over at Pharyngula. It addresses the 'throw up an obfuscatory cloud of words' defense so popular with theologians seeking to hide the lack of substance in their claims about knowledge of the supernatural. Myers picks apart these bad faith arguments thoroughly and efficiently:
"We often get this vague claim that religion is a different methodology and a different way of knowing things, and that judging religion as a science is a category error. Very well: different way of knowing what? What are these different questions that they are asking, how do they propose answering them, and why should we think these questions are even worth asking, and that their answers are valid? They never seem to get around to the specifics."
Precisely. Religionists aren't interested in answering questions; they're interested having their cake and eating it too. Whether they are trying to defend their lack of humility in the face of no evidence by offering up sad post modern arguments, or striking a false note of conciliation by suggesting that somehow science and faith need each other, their interest isn't in finding out what the truth actually is. Their interest is in telling the truth what they think it should be. To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, they're not content to simply get their heads into the heavens. They want the heavens in their heads.
More PZ:
"People like Conway Morris keep claiming that science and religion are not only compatible, but that both are necessary. I don't buy it. I have two simple questions for those who claim that the two are complementary.
1.What specific fundamental principles of your religion do you actually use in your science? I don't mean just general ethical principles, because atheists also have those, but tell me something specific about how you apply your religion to science?
2.Do you apply scientific principles to your religion, and do you do so consistently? Do you, for instance, test religious claims with experiment?
When you put it that specifically, most of the religious scientists I know would unashamedly and rightly say that no, they practice science in the lab or field without expectation of an intervention by Jesus to change the results, and that no, turning the skeptical tools of science against their faith would be inappropriate, or that god is not subject to our scrutiny. This is not compatibility. This is tergiversation. The only way they can claim compatibility is by pointing out that some individuals practice both religion and science, like Simon Conway Morris, but that says nothing, since people are damned good at encompassing contradictions."
I don't see what else I could add to PZ's dissection. Religious belief and intellectual integrity cannot exist in the same being at the same time. To survive, one must eat the other. If you claim to have both of these elements at once, I guarantee you that if one is of substance, the other is a facade. It shouldn't take too much investigation to discover where you stand on the matter.
Read PZ's entire post here:
http://scienceblogs.com/...
UPDATE
Those of you who called me out on the 'you can't have intellectual integrity and be a religious believer too' thing are probably correct. There are so many different ways to define 'religious belief', and a belief is a belief, even when the facts are against it, or no facts at all are present. I suppose I would rather people refer to their religious beliefs as 'hunches' or 'suspicions', if only for clarity's sake. That different individuals may possess different reasoning capacities is worth considering too, and I'm not certain how closely related intellectual courage and intellectual integrity are.
I think the integrity issue comes into play when people start claiming that their unsubstantiated beliefs are true, or when they seek to sabotage inquiry in order to preserve their beliefs. Actually, when you get to the stage of sabotaging inquiry, I think you're definitely acting in bad faith, and are displaying evidence that you know on some level that you're proclaiming something to be true which isn't.