Science and Religion Can and Do Mix, Mostly 1345
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."
really? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
13th Century Thomas Aquinas on the "conflict." (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Well, 85% of scientists are wrong, then. (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
Re:This just makes sense (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't speak for Islam.
For Christianity, maybe it's your local group or maybe you believe too much of what you see on TV.
The various Christian groups I've met have done nothing but heap kindnesses on me, even though I'm a heretic at best. I believe in God, but not necessarily the Bible, and although I'd love to met the physical incarnation of God, I've never been able to buy Jesus as Him. Didn't stop them from sharing their stories with me, sharing their food with me, inviting me to their homes or events, etc.
I grew up in a Catholic family, but most of us were lapsed Catholics. I expected very bad things going into a Catholic church, but I was surprised even there.
The Catholics were mostly concerned with whether they and the people they cared about were going to hell. The other groups all believed in salvation by grace so they were sure they weren't going to hell. They just wanted to be better people and 'save' others. None of them pushed me to adopt their religion (although they made themselves available). None of them spoke poorly about others.
Some of the groups were extremely studious. There were theologians among them. I learned more Greek and Hebrew words than I ever thought I would know just during sermons.
So, you're welcome to your opinion, but it just does not agree with my experiences.
Re:This just makes sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Science assumes that we can "fix" whatever flaws we have with science
This is nonsense. I mean that literally: that sentence doesn't mean anything. You need to define what you mean by "Science". I suspect that if everybody defined it as you did, you'd find virtually no "Scientists" under your definition. You also need to define flaws here because it looks like you're changing the definition of "flaw" when you talk about science and when you talk about the bible.
Ultimately you're trying to set up the following:
1. Science and your particular brand of Christianity have opposite opinions on whether man is flawed.
2. Christianity's opinion is that man is flawed.
3. Man is in fact flawed.
C. Christianity > Science
Problem is, point 1 is complete garbage which I suspect was invented just to justify your conclusion, and furthermore even if it wasn't, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, because you need to add something to the effect of "the question of whether mankind is flawed is more important than everything else in the world combined". That's a belief in some corners of Christianity but if you use Christianity as a basis there then you're begging the question.
If we have empirically proven that "all men are flawed" is 100% accurate, then science says that "all men are flawed" is 100% accurate. Therefore science and your interpretation of the bible are in perfect agreement on this point.
I'd explain the two stories to you, but I doubt you'd even care as to why they are important to the whole narrative.
Tip for the future: don't bother saying that, it actually weakens your position compared to not addressing his point. It's condescending while at the same time in strongly implies that you can't explain the stories and are just hoping that the other person will make your argument for you. It's a fundamentally dishonest fallacy where you say "you lose, because I said so". That's a terrible argument even when you're right.
Re:This just makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
>>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.
Wrong assessment (Score:2, Interesting)
I ecourage you to review Genesis 22:7,8.
Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
God WILL provide, not God HAS provided. Abraham knew God was not evil and therefore God would not allow Isacc to be killed. Maybe he would resurect him. Maybe the knife wouldn't hurt Isacc. He had no idea how god would resolve the issue, but he knew he would be returning with Isacc.
Now lets translate this to the Aliens. They down from the sky in a spaceship, performed all sorts of wonders and miracles, and predicted the future with uncanny accuracy, and even helped me and my wife conceive when we thought it was impossible.
Then the aliens then tell you that they need your son, whom they helped to create, to continue to be able to communicate with you and the earth in general. From you experience with these beings you know they are moral beings. You know that even if your son isn't with you he will be well cared for.
What do you do now?
Now your second assessment... I think you are tripping over a few language and cultural issues. From the prior section we know that Soddom and Gramorrah were currently at war with their neighbors. Next, strangers (not aliens as for as you can tell) randomly show up. The people of Soddom decide they might be spies and since then as now rape is about the most humiliating things one human can do to another, it is beleived that homosexual rape was used extensivly during interrogations.
Next you are forgetting the two most dramatic cultural changes in human society since the transition fromhunter-gatherer to agriculture. Specifically slavery and Womens liberation. Up until about 100 years ago women were assumed to be the property of their husband or the male head of the family. With only a few exceptions women have been property.
In ancient Israel, daughters have no choice on who they marry or even relate to. The daughter is property.
So now the story, now translated to the modern day reads:
Similarly, if {a potential spy} was about to {undergo 'enhanced interrogation'} at my doorstep by an angry mob, I might be willing to try to fight the mob off and risk my life, {I might even try to pay them to go away by giving them my most valuable and treasured property.} Heck, I might even be able to understand it if to fend the mob off I had to offer *myself* up for a good raping.
On the far side of the 20th century, we have to be very carefull that we don't let the morality that modern technology allows to interfere with the morality that has served mankind for over 3000 years.
Re:This just makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Religion is irrational. Science is not. (Score:2, Interesting)
No scientist worthy of the title tolerates supernatural explanations for anything, including the moral or ethical behavior humans exhibit. Appealing to deity to explain/justify human behavior is just as fucking stupid and irrational as appealing to deity to explain gravity, or the origin of the cosmos. No rational scientist would accept such explanations for cosmology; why on earth should morality or ethics be treated any different?
If you passively tolerate religious people, you are part of the problem. You are doing yourself, your friends, and your species a disservice. Get in their face about their irrationality -- don't be easy or gentle on them. If you are savvy enough to be reading slashdot, you know that religion delayed the Enlightenment by a millenia and a half -- if you feel the need to pull your punches in this fight, I urge you to think about where we might be as a species right now, if fucking religion hadn't stifled scientific progress for 1500 years. And make no mistake -- it is a fight, and the stakes are pretty high. Ignorance and fear vs knowledge and rationality, with the future viability of our species in the balance.
Re:Wrong assessment (Score:4, Interesting)
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....
Re:You demonstrate the flaw in the article. (Score:4, Interesting)
> 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.