Another consideration, given that James has brought William of Occam into
this, is that a comprehensive scientific overview of the issue would involve
paying some attention to the question of where religion comes from. If there
were no reasonable alternative explanation, then the idea of gods making
themselves known to people might be the only option.
There are however plausible explanations for the development of religion
that make sense to an atheist. Since we tend to see the world in
anthropomorphic terms (even contemporary scientists speak of furious storms
and treacherous riptides), no doubt early man associated natural phenomena
with human-like gods or spirits. There were no doubt individuals who claimed
that they understood these spirits and became shamans and priests.
Eventually the priesthood hooked up with the politicians in the powerful
symbiosis that has existed throughout recorded history - priests maintain
the state religion and kings rule by divine right. Priests and ministers
accompanied colonialists to ensure that the minds of those conquered were
enslaved as well as their bodies.
So there is an alternative explanation that covers most religions, and I
think that should be an important part of scientific thinking about the
relation between science and religion.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Crants" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: segunda-feira, 17 de Maio de 2010 16:36
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
If you try to apply the scientific approach to such topics, you are stuck
with either agnosticism (because questions about the supernatural are
scientifically untestable, so we should no pretend we have scientific
answers to such questions) or atheism (because assuming the presence of
supernatural things on top of all we can demonstrate to be true is less
parsimonious than assuming their absence).
