Hi
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Louis_Schmier wrote:
> Jim, I don't think either science or religion is intrinsically harmful or
> in conflict with the other, or is exclusive of the other. It is the
> extent to which people use, misuse, abuse one or the other--or both--or
> focus on one to the exclusion of the other.
>
> For example, if someone wants to say that a divine power created the
> universe and science describes the structure and operation of that
> universe, where's the conflict or the harm?
The conflict comes when the assertions of religion are
discredited by science. For example, if someone wants to say
that a divine power created the universe in 7 days about 6000
years ago, then they are going to find themselves in conflict
with science. The harm comes when religious assertions that are
take as the gospel prevent science-based courses of action that
are beneficial. Perhaps the clearest example of this comes in
such cases as refusal of medical treatment for religious reason.
Or with respect to this group, the harm comes when scientific
investigation of some domain (e.g., human behavior and
experience) is questioned because it promises to contradict
sacred beliefs (e.g., a mechanistic explanation for some human
experience that is attributed now to spiritual causes).
In fact, both science and
> religion rest on faith: faith in the existence of a divine creative power
> however named or pictured or whatever; faith that everything is
> intelligible and is governed by universal laws.
The former is faith because it has does not depend on nor have
empirical evidence to support it. At one time, scientists indeed
had only faith that the universe is intelligible and governed by
universal laws. One cannot make such a claim any longer. These
premises (i.e., intelligibility, universal laws) have been so
strongly supported by science's success that it would require
considerable mental juggling to say they are merely based on
unsubstantiated faith.
The great men of science
> such as Pico de Mirandola, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Braehe, Bacon,
> Decartes, Newton saw no conflict between science and religion.
I'm not sure that some of these figures would agree there was no
conflict between science and religion given their treatment by
religious officials of the time. Moreover, the reason you have
to go back so far is because contemporary scientists (i.e., the
past 100 years or so) are _less_ likely to believe in god than
the general population (see Beit-Hallahmi & Argyle, 1997, p.
180). This is especially true of eminent scientists (and
literary figures), such as Nobel prize winners.
The
> conflicts that arose in the 16th century was not between science and
> religion. It was between the conflicting views of the emerging belief in
> man's capacity to discover and know "truth" directly on one hand and an
> established, self-proclaimed infallible church's view that, given the
> blinding and deafening impact of original sin, absolute truth could only
> be obtained by divine revelation as handed down--professed (hence,
> professors)--through the clergy.
To me this accurate characterization captures elements that are
central to the conflict between science and religion (i.e.,
belief in the capacity of people to discover and know truth vs.
divine revelation). So I don't see how this can be viewed as
_not_ a conflict between science and religion.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9313
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L02A
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
