I’m sure I do not have to tell you that Sean Carroll is an amazing blogger. I love reading his blog, Cosmic Variance, and can’t wait to hear him speak at the Q2C festival in October.  He’s not afraid of blogging on controversial or outrageous subjects, and a few days ago he published an entry titled “Science and Religion are Not Compatible.”

Chris Mooney responded to Carroll’s post the very next day, arguing that Carroll has inadequately considered the definition of religion:

It really does depend what you mean by “religion.” If we’re talking about the kind of religion that compels a person to reject evolution, to question the age of the Earth, then that religion is most emphatically not compatible with science.

But if we’re talking about Haught’s kind of religion, where there’s no belief that science can refute–just a kind of supernaturalism that, like it or not, is inherently defined as being beyond science’s ability to measure–then I think compatibilism becomes much more possible and real.

I’m sure we haven’t seen the end of the debate. Mooney ended his post with a quote and question:

I wonder what Sean would say to this quotation from the Dalai Lama, provided helpfully in a comment on this blog by Michael Tobis:

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

The debate is not new, but I just had to mention it, because it’s spurred a lot of interesting discussions on the Discover blogs that you’ll definitely want to check out if you haven’t already.