I passed on blogging about the recent Science Guy versus Bible Guy debate.
I'm so beyond all that now in my personal journey of discovery. I like science
and I like the study of the human religious impulse. However, I don't like being
a participant in some "religion versus science war."
In other words, I opt out. My personal opinion is that either study might
inform the other, but I don't think one should be used to attempt to nullify the
other.
Extremism. That's what really bores me. I don't prefer
religious "revelations" beyond what I (or anyone) am able to discover using
normal means. At the same time, I sure don't enjoy listening to science geeks
pontificate on things that seems to me beyond the proper realm of their study.
(I'm not here defending NOMA, but IF there is a supernatural realm, surely that
isn't something science can tell us much about.)
Bram Stoker, noted for his horror classic Dracula, wrote "Ah, it is the
fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explains not, then
it says there is nothing to explain.”
There is a God of the gaps - where the unknown is categorically chalked up
to "God did it" - to be sure; but as has been noted, there is also a
science-of-the-gaps that feels certain knowledge gaps eventually will be
fully explained by naturalism.
The ultimate why question still resonates with me: Why is there a
Cosmos instead of a chaos, or nothing at all?
That seems to be a real toughie.
If religious believers shouldn't be anti-science (and I firmly believe they
shouldn't and folks like Ken Ham are way out there in the Twilight Zone), should
scientists be anti-religion (not a-religious, but vehemently against), and use
their scientific disciplines to argue against the possibility of there be
something beyond the natural?
I agree here with you Doug. I would say in my own studies that I don't believe that Christianity is true, but I don't necessarily rule out the possibility for a God or even Gods.
ReplyDeleteI'm suspicious about the "revealed" religions like Christianity. At least at this point in my thinking such things are too specific for my personal God hypothesis.
DeleteI'm staying out of this debate as well. It gets no one anywhere. Especially those on the outside, looking in.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but believe the science versus religion debate is a false dichotomy. It certainly generates more heat than light.
DeleteHi Doug. I don't think most scientist care one way or the other what different religions believe. I do think they care that these religions are hurting humanity and our world.
ReplyDeleteThat's such a broad blanket statement - "that these religions are hurting humanity and our world" - that I really don't know how to respond other than to suggest that the problem isn't either science or religion; I think it is the abuse of them.
DeleteHi Doug, I sort of agree with you - religion vs science debates are generally pointless and frustrating. But when some religious people make statements and hold beliefs that are contrary to science, and when some scientists make philosophical and anti-religious statements that have no real basis, but claim the authority of their science, then those of us in the middle either try to point out the mistakes on either side, or we watch people continue to be fooled by what seems to be false information. I don't suppose the hard core on either side will ever be convinced, but there would be plenty of people in the middle still working their ideas out.
ReplyDeleteSylvia, the interesting thing is, scientific studies show that mostly, religions don't cause much of the harm they are sometimes accused of, and actually benefit society in many ways. I can reference you some reports if you're interested.
Perhaps there are many more who would be "in the middle" if they thought about it a little deeper. At any rate, I like your blog and am including it in my blog links. Thanks for commenting here.
DeleteThanks.
Delete