Conversation
Yes, there is a war between science and religion
Claims are growing louder that Western nations are becoming more and more secular, that evolutionary biological and cosmological discoveries narrow the boundaries of faith, and that science and religion are compatible. If you are a believer who is not known to be anti-science, what can you do? You have to argue that your belief – or any belief – is completely consistent with science. Therefore, not only can one agree on science and religion after a claim from believers, religious scientists, valuable scientific organizations, and atheists, but they can actually help each other. This claim is called “shelter”. But I would argue that this is misguided: science and religion refer not only to conflict – even to “war” – but to irrelevant ways of looking at the world. This is how my argument against opposing means of knowing the truth works. I will create “science” as a set of tools we use to discover the truth about the universe, with the understanding that these truths are more temporary than absolute. These tools include observing nature, making hypotheses and testing, trying hard to prove that testing your belief that your hypothesis is correct, doing experiments and above all reflecting your and others ’decisions to increase confidence in your hypothesis. Like philosopher Daniel Tennett, I define religion as: “Participants gain trust in an unnatural agent or agents who must be approved.” Of course many religions do not fit that definition, but what is often said to be compatible with science – Judaism, Christianity and the Abrahamic beliefs of Islam – fills the bill. Next, realize that both religion and science depend on “truth statements” about the universe – claims about reality. Religion differs from the house science of dealing with morality, purpose, and substance, but even those areas depend on the basis of empirical claims. You can not call yourself a Christian if you do not believe in the resurrection of Christ. After all, if you reject the true claims of faith, why do you accept it? In fact, even the Bible states: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen: unless Christ is raised up, our preaching is in vain, and your hope is in vain. ”Many theologians emphasize the empirical foundations of religion, agreeing with the physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorn:>“ The question of truth is central [religion’s] Anxiety because it is in science. Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one in a mortal attitude, but if it is not true it can do nothing, so there is nothing more than an illusory exercise in comforting the imagination. ”Conflict between science and conflict, then, is the belief in the methods they use to decide what is true and what the facts are: these are conflicts of both method and effect. In contrast to scientific methods, religion is not empiricism, but doctrine, scripture, and authority – in other words, by faith, Hebrews 11 defines “the meaning of things expected, the evidence of things not seen.” In science, unsubstantiated belief is a vice, while in religion it is a virtue. Remember what Jesus said to “doubt Thomas” who was forced to point fingers at the wounds of the risen Savior: “Thomas, because you saw me, you believed: blessed are those who have not seen and yet do not believe.” However, without supporting the evidence, Americans believe many religious claims: 74 percent of us believe in God, 68 percent in the divinity of Jesus, 68 percent in heaven, 57 percent in virgin birth, 58 percent in devil and hell. Why do they think these are true? Belief.But different religions are different – often contradictory – claims, there is no way to determine which claims are correct. There are more than 4,000 religions on this planet, and their “truths” are completely different. (For example, Muslims and Jews completely reject the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God.) In fact, new divisions often arise when some believers reject what others believe to be true. The Lutherans disagreed about the fact of evolution, while the Unitarians rejected other Protestant beliefs that Jesus was an element of God. Although science has succeeded after its success in understanding the universe, there is no evidence for the “method” divinity for the use of faith. How many deities are there? What are their natures and moral religions? Is there resurrection? Why is there moral and physical evil? No one has the answers to these questions. Everything is a mystery, because everything is in faith. Thus, the “battle” between science and religion is a conflict over whether you have good reason to believe what you are doing: whether you view faith as a complement or a virtue. Analyzing passages is irrational, so how do believers adjust to science and religion? Often they point to the existence of religious scientists such as NIH Director Francis Collins or to many religious people who accept science. But I would argue that this is not analysis, compatibility, because how can you deny the divinity in your lab, but can you accept that the wine you drink on Sunday is the blood of Jesus? Others argue that religion in the past promoted science and inspiring questions about the universe. But in the past every westerner was religious, and in the long run, it is debatable whether the advancement of science was promoted by religion. Of course evolutionary biology, my own field, is strongly hindered by creationism, which arises only from religion. Today science is practiced as an atheistic discipline – and mostly by atheists. There is a huge disparity in religious differences between American scientists and Americans as a whole: 64 percent of our elite scientists are atheists or agnostics, compared to 6 percent of the general population – more than ten times the difference. Whether this reflects the divergent attraction of those who disbelieve in science or the belief that destroys science – I suspect both factors are at work – is the primary evidence for a scientific-religious conflict. The most common hostel argument is Stephen J. Gold’s “Non-Mutual Magistrates. “Religion and science should not contradict each other,” he argued: “Science seeks to document the reality of the natural world and develop theories that integrate these facts.” Religion, on the other hand, operates in the realm of equally important, but completely different, human motives, meanings and values - the realm of science may shine, but never solve. “It simply came to our notice then. First, religion certainly claims the “reality of the universe.” In fact, the greatest opponents of the unwritten magistrates are believers and theologians, many of whom reject the notion that the Abrahamic religions are “empty in any claim to historical or scientific facts.” “Religion” has motives, meanings and values, ”which of course varies among beliefs. There is a long and unique history of philosophy and ethics – from Plato, Hume and Kant to Peter Singer, Derek Burfit and John Rawls in our day – which relies on reason rather than belief as a fountain of morality. All radical ethical philosophies are secular ethical philosophies. In the end, it is irrational to determine what is true in your daily life using empirical evidence, but trust the thinking and ancient superstitions to choose the “truths” under which you believe. It engages a mind (no matter how scientifically famous) at war with itself, creating intellectual diversity. If you decide that there are good reasons to have any faith, you should choose between faith and reason. As facts become increasingly important for the benefit of our species and our planet, people need to see the hope in it: not a virtue, but a defect. This article is republished from Conversation, a non-profit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from education. Experts. Read more: * Jesuits as Scientific Missionaries of the Catholic Church * Why do scientific issues divide us on a party basis? * The war between science and religion is inevitable. Jerry Coin does not work, consult, own shares or receive funding from any company or organization that may benefit from this article, and does not disclose any relevant contacts beyond their academic appointment.