I think any disagreement I have with what you're saying is a matter of splitting semantic hairs. Wayne's original point had to do with the conflict between dogmatic religion and science, and there's definitely a conflict. You're right that religious dogma (and other non-rational beliefs) often trumps science in the minds of individuals, and I'm right that science often trumps dogma in the minds of individuals, even religious individuals.
Wayne also says "there is much in science that is not inconsistent with true religion." I have some idea what he means by true religion, and I've heard similar statements from many religious people who are frustrated at seeing religion hijacked by dogmatic loudmouths. One problem is that religious discussion has been so thoroughly controlled by dogmatic believers for so long that there are no longer any words to express what non-dogmatic religious people even believe. I guess my only point is that, as much as religion as practiced by most people in the West conflicts with science, there are still plenty of religious people who have no trouble with science whatsoever, and no trouble accepting scientific findings as the best model available for how reality actually works. There is no inherent conflict between science and religion, there is just inherent conflict between science and certain bits of religious dogma (to which not all religious people subscribe). On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM, William Silvert <cien...@silvert.org>wrote: > I am not clear what a "literal truth" is, and I cannot dispute the common > argument that evolution is "just a theory" -- theories are all we have, > there is no such thing as a "proven scientific fact". But given the number > of people (according to some polls, a majority of Americans) whose religious > views lead them to reject the theory of evolution, I hardly think that > science trumps scripture. More fundamental is the concept that man holds a > special place in a universe created for him, which many religions are not > willing to surrender. > > But I think that the issue in this lively discussion is the conflict > between faith and evidence, and I think that there are many cases where > faith trumps evidence, not only in religion. Think of the cases where > someone makes a video tape in which he promises to kill people, then goes > out and slaughters his schoolmates or other innocents in full view of > cameras and witnesses, and then his mother and neighbours appear on TV to > declare their belief that he is a nice boy and did not commit such an awful > crime. > > I do think that there are fundamental questions about the role of religion > in society that go well beyond being swayed by fundamentalists, but that > leads us into anthropological issues that go far outside the scope of this > list. > > Bill Silvert > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: James Crants > To: William Silvert > Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu > Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 21:27 > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > > > 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 > -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
