Bill and Ecolog:
This is exactly why I took care in my initial post to emphasize DOGMA.
"Religion" suffers the semantic fate of a lot of terminology; it
simultaneously covers everything unscientific and cherry-picks extremes.
That is why the discussion took off on an infinite number of tracks, and a
"value-free" observer does well to "let it all hang out."
Meanwhile, back on the track, the issue is how to best reconcile the fact of
dogmatic tendencies in religion tar all "philosophy" and are not so entirely
unknown in "science" as many inside those ivory towers insist. How, for
example, should a science teacher handle the dogmatic student?
This is a common and ongoing challenge. While perhaps magnified a bit in the
academic context, the nature of this conflict may have roots far deeper into
the ways humans have come to interact. It seems that there is, to paraphrase
Margaret Mead, "conflict enough to go around." She actually said "There's
love enough to go around." Maybe she was in a rare mood of wishful thinking,
maybe not, but love in the form of ENGAGEMENT might be fertile grounds for
the beginning of a reconciliation revolution.
One thing seems certain. The present "system" could use some refinement.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <cien...@silvert.org>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 2:39 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track?
While I have found the animated discussion interesting, I think we are
getting away from the original issue of actual conflict between science
and
religion. This began with a student who dropped science because of the
evolution issue, which is (or was) fairly common -- my step-father never
could teach his physical anthopology course without getting into a fight
with students who believed in creation. One can of course be religious
without getting into a bind -- no reason why a scientist cannot go home
and
pray, attend religious services, and so on. But direct conflicts are only
the tip of the iceberg.
If we compare our mostly secular modern society with that of the past few
centuries or millenia then the difference between a society based on
observation and reason, which is basically what science is all about, and
one based on religion is clear. Consider for example the matter of race.
Even on the fringes of modern society, the people who think that blacks
aren't smart enough to be quarterbacks, or the scientific extremes
represented by The Bell Curve, there is some awareness of our common
ancestry and the essential human nature of non-white races. In the past on
the other hand, slavery and genocide were justified by the religious
doctrine that only white people have souls, and that humanoids without
souls
could be treated like animals. Now of course the issue of souls is not one
where science and religion are in direct conflict, no scientist can
determine whether or not the soul really exists. But the fate and lives of
millions of people were determined by whether the religious "knowledge"
that
they had no souls took precedence over the scientific evidence that all of
the races of man are fundamentally similar.
Societies have been shaped by religion, and not always constructively.
Serfs
were held down not only by armed might but by belief in the divine right
of
kings -- even today many people believe that hereditary aristocrats are
superior to commoners. Whether the priests who accompanied Pizarro went in
support of his greedy goals or really just wanted to save souls, they
certainly help subjugate the natives. We still see religion as sometimes
an
obstacle to social development. Consider the frequent mine disasters that
have been in the news recently. No doubt many of the widows console
themselves with the thought that this was god's will and was foreordained,
and that they will meet their husbands in heaven. This is fine, I am all
in
favour of consoling the sad and alleviating emotional suffering. But there
also has to be a scientific investigation into the causes of the disaster
that leads to improvements in mine safety, and the grieving widows should
support this. All too often the religious explanation (god's will) is seen
as a valid alternative to the scientific one (negligence). But of course
no
scientist can prove that these disasters are not god's will!
For me the fundamental issue is whether we act scientifically, that is to
say on the basis of evidence and reason, or whether we defer to religious
belief. This leaves plenty of room for mysticism and the kind of ecstasy
that E. O. Wilson wrote about, for prayer and holy celebrations. But to
act
irrationally on the basis of one's religious beliefs in a way that causes
harm to people or to anything else in our environment is in my opinion an
abomination.
Bill Silvert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2893 - Release Date: 05/24/10
06:26:00
