On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres < sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Science is based on fact. > Religion is based on faith. > They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants
