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
