ABC News has an interesting (or at least I think so) column stating that
Religion Deserves More Study By Scientists.
One anthropologist, Scott Atran, suggests that science hasn't studied
religion "very deeply" because of "some sort of an agreement between science and
religion to remain separate." Maybe.
Atran is critical of the New Atheism that, according to this article, has
attempted to "discredit all religions" with their assertion that science "has
now answered the questions that only religions could answer in the days before
evolution."
Then there is the key passage from this article quoting Atran:
"The idea that we can simply wish this (religion) away, or argue
it away, is crazy," he said. "Arguing that facts and reason will get rid of
religion is crazy. We sprinkle some kind of magical reasoning dust around and
everyone becomes reasonable?"
Or, as the study puts it: "seemingly contrary evidence seldom undermines religious belief."
I think that pretty much sums up the matter. The fact is, most of humans are more emotional than we are logical.
If science popularly represents a reductive physicalism, I think religion at its best represents a holistic idealism. If so, no wonder there tends to be an "agreement" to keep the two separate.
I read and enjoyed Stephen Jay Gould's treatise (Rocks Of Ages) on what he considered the Non-Overlapping Magisteria of science and religion. Nice thought, but it certainly breaks down time and time again in actual practice. Personally, I find fault with both sides for this. I don't think NOMA is the solution to the science versus religion war, but it's a nice approach. Thus, I'm a bit leery of religion in the laboratory.
Or, as the study puts it: "seemingly contrary evidence seldom undermines religious belief."
I think that pretty much sums up the matter. The fact is, most of humans are more emotional than we are logical.
If science popularly represents a reductive physicalism, I think religion at its best represents a holistic idealism. If so, no wonder there tends to be an "agreement" to keep the two separate.
I read and enjoyed Stephen Jay Gould's treatise (Rocks Of Ages) on what he considered the Non-Overlapping Magisteria of science and religion. Nice thought, but it certainly breaks down time and time again in actual practice. Personally, I find fault with both sides for this. I don't think NOMA is the solution to the science versus religion war, but it's a nice approach. Thus, I'm a bit leery of religion in the laboratory.
6 comments:
What do you call someone who's leary of anything in the laboratory?
"I don't think NOMA is the solution to the science versus religion war, but it's a nice approach. Thus, I'm a bit leery of religion in the laboratory."
The 2 sentences here don't seem to harmonize well to me. Perhaps another post might clear up for me what you are saying? (For the sake of brevity I take it to be obvious why I see a tension between them - will elaborate if my comment isn't clear to you.)
@ Mildred Ratched,
Well, I do think there is room for healthy skepticism about what goes on in the laboratory.
@ Exrelayman,
Clumsy perhaps, but really I just mean that NOMA sounds good in theory but seems to break down in actual practice.
Also, for example, I think the attempts to weigh dying people in order to determine the weight of a purported human soul or studies designed to test the efficacy of prayer aren't really useful (interesting, but not really useful). So I am leery of such things.
There is room for healthy skepticism about every proposition. Who is doing the testing? Does a believer want to support his belief? Does a skeptic want to demolish a belief? Both are equally inimical to discovery of the truth. Specific to the laboratory, whose laboratory is it and might they have an agenda? Quite reasonable leeriness.
Good science is simply good thinking. The recognition that we all have biases is why science incorporates, as much as possible, double blind experiments. Science with an agenda is bad science. The world is a laboratory. Since religion occurs in the world, I agree that NOMA is an unrealistic attempt to protect religious ideas from critical scrutiny. Anyway, you cleared up my confusion. Thanks.
You said that quite eloquently, I think.
Post a Comment