Separation Principles Matrix

This matrix does not contain all of even the bare essentials for the discussion of distinguishing science from religion, but it may nevertheless be helpful in studying the material. See also "Four Common Mistakes to be Avoided" at the bottom of this page.

Principle

Accurate about Religion?

Accurate about Science?

Describes an essential, general difference?

Separation by Standards: Science does, but Religion does not, attempt to meet (the) high(est) cognitive standards. No, Religion addresses some of the most important questions and often maintains high standards. Yes, though Science sometimes fails badly to meet those standards. No.

Separation by Reference: Religion does, but Science does not, make essential reference to God, the Great Designer. No, it ignores the enormous diversity of the world's religions. No, there seems to be no good reason to make divine beings off limits for Science. No.

Separation by Attitude: Religion does, but Science does not, express the awe-and-wonder attitude towards Nature. No, it ignores the enormous diversity of the world's religions. No, aesthetic merits can be important in assessing competing theories. No, it describes a similarity.

Separation by Personal Improvement: Religion aims for personal improvement, but Science does not; Science seeks knowledge for its own sake. No, it ignores the fact that Religion often focuses on communities. No, seeking knowledge for its own sake is a kind of personal improvement. No, it describes a similarity.

Separation by Fact and Value: Religion does, but Science does not, try to say what morally ought to be (values); Science merely tries to say how things actually are (the facts). Yes, though religions may differ about the nature of morality. No, among the facts are moral facts about normal human function (human well-being). No, it describes a common interest.

Separation by Foundation: Religion is, but Science is not, based on faith; Science is based on proof and observation. Yes, though some religious beliefs are not taken on faith but instead based on others. No, given an appropriate definition of "faith," science is based on faith. No, it describes a similarity.

Separation by Explanation: Religion does, but Science does not, use purpose-directed (teleological) explanation; Science uses only causal explanation. Yes, though not all of the world's religions offer Western religions' Arguments from Design It seems not, since biology and psychology seem to require purpose-directed explanation of some sort. Maybe, maybe not - we'll see.

Separation by Immaterial Causation: Religion says that changes in nonphysical objects cause changes in physical objects, but Science does not. No, not all of the world's religions accept the (or one common) Western distinction between mind and matter. Perhaps, though more must be said about the nature of causation and about non-physical objects before we can be sure. No. [This separation principle will not be covered on hour exam #2.]

Four Common Mistakes to be Avoided

1. "P = I believe that P"

This is the (natural, difficult to resist) mistake detailed here. You will be invited to make it on the hour exam and on the dualism quiz. Please reject the invitation.

2. "Anything I know or believe about my current mental states is classically self-evident for me."

This does not follow from the definition of "classically self-evident" and is false. For example, almost any beliefs you have about the causes of your current mental states are possibly mistaken and so not classically self-evident.

"My current visual sensation of words in black type is caused by seeing these very words in black type"

is a claim about how your visual sensation is caused and thinking that this claim is true does not logically necessitate its truth - you might after all be dreaming.

"It seems to be that I'm now seeing some words in black type"

(or, what comes to about the same, "I'm now having a visual sensation of words that look like this in black type") is however classically self-evident for you now.

Similarly, "My current visual sensation of words in black is caused by a dream of words in black" is not classically self-evident for you now.

So whether the conjectured route of causation is external or internal, the conjecture is fallible and not classically self-evident for you now.

3. "Only Classical Foundationalism includes classically self-evident beliefs in the foundation."

This is inconsistent with the characterizations of Common Sense Foundationalism and Theistically Thick Foundationalism. Every kind of foundationalism we've considered (and many more that we've not mentioned) makes classically self-evident beliefs foundational. Why not? They are wholly immune to error and guaranteed to be true!

4. "According to Plantinga, there are no constraints on which beliefs (thought-) ought to be foundational. Everyone is wholly free to choose his or her own foundational beliefs."

This is rejected by Plantinga, as it should be, since all the beliefs in this structure are supposed to be rational beliefs, and foundational beliefs must have a special kind of security to support a large superstructure.

Instead, Plantinga correctly indicates that there must be constraints on which beliefs (thought-) ought to be foundational. In "Is Belief in God Properly Basic?" he does not however offer a general principle that specifies those constraints.

But he does successfully argue that the principle of Classical Foundationalism requires the irrational constraint of classically self-evident status; and he concludes that although classically self-evident beliefs do deserve to be foundational, there must be some beliefs that are less than classically self-evident but which are foundational. But even when adding these less-than-absolutely-certain beliefs to the foundation, a great deal of care ought to be taken.

2001 David F. Austin

Back to: Sample Hour Exam #2 with answers

Principle	Accurate about Religion?	Accurate about Science?	Describes an essential, general difference?
Separation by Standards: Science does, but Religion does not, attempt to meet (the) high(est) cognitive standards.	No, Religion addresses some of the most important questions and often maintains high standards.	Yes, though Science sometimes fails badly to meet those standards.	No.
Separation by Reference: Religion does, but Science does not, make essential reference to God, the Great Designer.	No, it ignores the enormous diversity of the world's religions.	No, there seems to be no good reason to make divine beings off limits for Science.	No.
Separation by Attitude: Religion does, but Science does not, express the awe-and-wonder attitude towards Nature.	No, it ignores the enormous diversity of the world's religions.	No, aesthetic merits can be important in assessing competing theories.	No, it describes a similarity.
Separation by Personal Improvement: Religion aims for personal improvement, but Science does not; Science seeks knowledge for its own sake.	No, it ignores the fact that Religion often focuses on communities.	No, seeking knowledge for its own sake is a kind of personal improvement.	No, it describes a similarity.
Separation by Fact and Value: Religion does, but Science does not, try to say what morally ought to be (values); Science merely tries to say how things actually are (the facts).	Yes, though religions may differ about the nature of morality.	No, among the facts are moral facts about normal human function (human well-being).	No, it describes a common interest.
Separation by Foundation: Religion is, but Science is not, based on faith; Science is based on proof and observation.	Yes, though some religious beliefs are not taken on faith but instead based on others.	No, given an appropriate definition of "faith," science is based on faith.	No, it describes a similarity.
Separation by Explanation: Religion does, but Science does not, use purpose-directed (teleological) explanation; Science uses only causal explanation.	Yes, though not all of the world's religions offer Western religions' Arguments from Design	It seems not, since biology and psychology seem to require purpose-directed explanation of some sort.	Maybe, maybe not - we'll see.
Separation by Immaterial Causation: Religion says that changes in nonphysical objects cause changes in physical objects, but Science does not.	No, not all of the world's religions accept the (or one common) Western distinction between mind and matter.	Perhaps, though more must be said about the nature of causation and about non-physical objects before we can be sure.	No. [This separation principle will *not* be covered on hour exam #2.]