Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of
interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist
could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be
more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible.
James writes that "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." Certainly not all, and I doubt
the "most". And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact.
The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid
the word "beliefs") on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical
foundation.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Crants" <jcra...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re:
[ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
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
