The Conflict Between Science and Religion

[lil_shepherd]

All the atheist's blog sites are rushing to recommend Eric MacDonald's (ex-Anglican priest and the commentator who really should write his own blog) review of Science and Religion: a Very Short Introduction by Thomas Dixon (and part of the OUP series) over at Butterflies and WheelsSo why shouldn't I join in

Comments

[lil_shepherd]

I rather think that this is, to some extent, Eric's point.

If you can't explain it, it isn't an issue.

[madfilkentist]

A couple of days ago I watched part of a documentary on the history of the telescope. The part on Galileo had a good summary of his work and how two Popes treated him, but then the narrator excused the Catholic Church by saying it wasn't obvious at the time that Galileo's heliocentric view was right. That completely misses the point that the problem wasn't a scientific debate, but that the Church held that figurative passages in ancient texts override evidence, and offered the threat of torture as an argument.

[lil_shepherd]

Religious hierarchies are not interested in truth but in power. They will work with science (and reason) only when it supports their revelations. In Galileo's case, it wasn't the truth or not of what he was saying that bothered them, but the undermining of church Authority.

[mythichistorian]

I would be happier with these arguments if they didn't conflate 'religion' with patriarchal and humanocentric theology - while the history of the west is dominated by the tensions between scientific discovery and religeous dogma, the tenets of eastern philosophies (and those of western paganism for that matter) aren't even being acknowledged here, let alone being factored into the discussion.

That kind of omission makes me question the scientific rigour of the refutation - which I'm sure was not the intention of the author!

[lil_shepherd]

Eric's review might have been very different if the book he was reviewing did not also contain the assumption that 'religion' was just the Abrahamic faiths, with Christianity well to the fore - something that has been remarked on both in the comments to this review on Jerry Coyne's blog, and an earlier review by Jason Rosenhouse.

[mythichistorian]

The fault, perhaps of those who tend to argue from the perspectives of a particular theology - but that does not excuse presenting arguments against the specific as if they were universal. Beliefs that recognise the existance of suffering, pain and death as part of the greater whole aren't going to be convinced that pointing them out is - by itself - evidence of anything. Except, perhaps, the paternalism of the Abrahamic view ...

[lil_shepherd]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'recognising pain suffering and death as part of the greater whole.' Pain, suffering and death exist and cannot be avoided. Other religions try to impose their myths about them and their acceptance or avoidance in various ways, such as reincarnation or becoming one with the Tao, both of which can be countered by the same sort of arguments (i.e. no evidence of their existence), and which have no impact on scientific thought.

The only religion I can immediately think of that sees the universe as essentially uncaring is (that part of) Buddhism, which can be regarded as atheistic. Taoism has its own version of mysticism (the tao) for which there is no evidence, and Hinduism has its own problems in that area. Hinduism is a mish-mash of various beliefs, and is mainly about propitiation - again, with no effect on science and scientific thought.