Slashdot Mirror
Science and Religion Can and Do Mix, Mostly
coondoggie writes "A recent Rice University study found that in one of the more vitriolic social (and increasingly political) battlegrounds, science v. religion, there is more common ground that most folks believe. In fact, according to the study, only 15% of scientists at major U.S. research universities see religion and science as always in conflict."
The more interesting statistic is the percentage of "religious" people who think that there is conflict.
After having read the article, I am not convinced that the questions asked showed that there was common ground at all. It may well be that scientists recognise that religion and science are orthogonal and therefore do not conflict.
Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, 1265 AD: “Among the philosophical sciences one is speculative the other practical [natural philosophy], nevertheless sacred doctrine [Roman Catholicism] includes both; as God, by one and the same science, knows both Himself and His works.”
This basically states that if you are understanding science properly, you are understanding God's works properly. And conversely, if you understand God's works, you will let science progress to understand God's works, as God and science are one in the same.
That compromise in thinking eventually led to the Renaissance.
Actually, there's much less of a perception that evolution and religion are in conflict in most of the Muslim world than in the US. There are even a number of Muslims who interpret certain verses of the Qur'an as describing evolution. Turkey's really the only country with a history of evolution denial, and they picked it up from the US. Similarly, there are starting to be anti-evolution movements in other Muslim countries, but it's an idea that's been spreading with the influence of American culture.
Of course science and religion can mix and they should!
Let me quote Abdulbaha, son of the founder of the Bahai religion, a growing religious and social movement with more than six million followers:
If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.
Quite a strong statement for being from a major religious leader a hundred years ago. Also:
This gift [intelligence and reasoning] giveth man the power to discern the truth in all things, leadeth him to that which is right, and helpeth him to discover the secrets of creation
Finally:
Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.
The only reason that science and religion doesn't seem to mix is that too many religious leaders stick to their dogmas and traditions even in face of human and scientific progress. Religions role in this world is to develop and foster spirituality, morality and selflessness so we can create a fair and just society and it can only do so if it keeps evolving and improving with new knowledge and understandings. Christianity developed and changed a lot in the first few hundred years after Jesus with doctrines and writings being added and removed at a high pace. Why are so many churches of today so hellbent on sticking exactly to the way things earlier were? It's simply not healthy.
Ps. I'm not officially a Bahai, but I consider myself a "friend of the faith".
>>1. Create rules which, by his own admission, are so strict that they cannot be followed.
Who says the rules are so strict they can't be followed? Jesus said, "Be thou perfect, as thy father is perfect." The concept of Original Sin was the pet project of St. Augustine, who said rather famously "I cannot not sin." This was done to counter Pelagius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius) who felt that it was possible for good folk to live without sinning for extended periods of time.
St. Augustine also felt it was impossible to do good deeds without God's help, whereas Pelagius thought that while God was an inspiration for us to do good, it was our free will that made actions good or bad.
St. Augustine also felt that unbaptized kids go to hell, whereas Pelagius thought they were born without sin (again, Original Sin was an Augustinian thing based on some of the writings of St. Paul, not Jesus).
St. Augustine felt that people died because of sin, not because we're physical beings, and physics sort of sucks like that (as Pelagius felt).
Pelagius, quite unfortunately, lost the debate to St. Augustine (and got excommunicated for his efforts) and so we ended up with these theological contradictions that you sort of rightly point out don't make a lot of sense.
The irony is that after two thousand years I'd say that most churches would be considered Pelagian these days. So your ranting is a little bit misguided.
Christianity doesn't distinguish between law and morality. This is one of its greatest weaknesses IMO. A christian cannot make a moral or ethical judgement without an appeal to law. By using the "New Covenant" argument (OT law replaced by NT redemption), Christians distance themselves from the obvious barbarity in the OT. Ask them whether slavery WAS moral in the old testament and they'll dodge the question like Neo dodges bullets. Because their morality is based on a divine but arbitary and changeable law. Real ethics and morality inform the law, not the other way round! On the subject of the conflict of science and religion, it depends which science and which religion. When religions make falsifiable claims about the real world, such as the age of the earth and the occurrence of miracles, they are in the domain of science and deserve the ridicule coming to them. I was a fundamentalist Christian for 25 years, and can still recite large screeds of scripture from memory, so please don't condescend by telling me I don't understand the bible or Christianity. I do, better than most, that's why I quit.
Why would morality that's handed down from an immortal being change so drastically over time? This seems more like evidence that the whole thing is a bunch of made-up stories by a primitive middle-eastern culture than anything else. If god is omnipotent and infallible, then his definition of what's moral should be immutable. Yet, as you say, it used to be that daughters were property and offering them up for an angry crowd to rape was okay, but now it isn't.
So the only reason that women are people and not property now is technology? Wow, I bet you're a real hit with the ladies....
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
> No, the conflict between science and religion is a false conflict created by atheists as a way to denigrate religion
Clearly you've never read any of the newsletters from the American Family Association.
If not bothered by theocrats, I don't think you would ever hear form atheists.
You are mainly whining about SKEPTICS that rightfully won't accept things without evidence. This is the same reason that Troy was originally thought a myth and why it took about 80 years for plate tectonics to be widely accepted. You have to make a compelling case when it comes to a scientific argument. You can't just depend on blind faith and appeals to authority.
A very small vocal minority of fundie protestants object to the the philosophy of science in general.
They seek to alter the majority rather than tolerate what they view as heresy and don't have sufficient moral courage to separate themselves from the rest of the society that they find so disturbing.
The AFA and similar groups love to play victim and false martyr. The "moral majority" is actually a very noisy minority.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.