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: [email protected]
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<[email protected]>
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"<[email protected]>
To:<[email protected]>
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<
[email protected]> 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
