William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define "a religion" narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch "a religion."
Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover "most religions," but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate "being religious" with "believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen." But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree. There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is false just because it's in some old book. Jim On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvert <cien...@silvert.org>wrote: > 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 >> > -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
