Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia,...
Rated • 2 reviews • religion, science and religion • wikipedia.org
The relationship between Science and Religion is a fascinating one to me, especially with the sad and highly disturbing rejection of science by many people in America, including people in very high places.
Science aims to build a body of knowledge in a very self-critical way. Adding to this body of knowledge is a very difficult, painstaking process (the scientific method), and one that is firmly based on objective evidence.
Religion could perhaps be defined as a belief system that (by its nature) is not based on objective evidence.
Here, for what it's worth, is my personal summary of each of them:
The situation looks kind of symmetrical, in a way, except that a strong case could be made that the worst aspects of religion (as practiced by people) have historically caused far more human misery than have the worst aspects of science (as practiced by people). Furthermore, I have to say that in the "worst" department on both sides, it is (almost?) always men causing the misery, not women. Hmmm...
The 14th Dalai Lama (a truly great man) writes: "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview." (see below).
The Vatican is coming to terms with science in a way that (given history and also some misconceptions on my part) I find astonishing (for example, see below).
But in America...
There are so many aspects of "creationism" and "intelligent design" that seem so unintelligent, for example:
How can an intelligent person of today look into the awesome depths of the night sky and believe that the Earth was created in literal accordance with the Bible? Does this person think that stars and galaxies of stars are glowing dots stuck on a celestial dome of some kind?
(Answer: because this form of religion makes you switch off your reasoning brain.)
An intelligent person looks at the wonders of nature and reasons that they couldn't have come about "naturally". I can easily understand why someone who hasn't researched the scientific knowledge doesn't believe that (say) an eyeball could come about through evolution. It's much too complex for that, right? (Actually, not right, but it's still an understandable belief.) But then the person thinks: "I can't believe this because it's too complex. So what I'll believe instead is that there is something unimaginably more complex that is able to create this complexity..." Hello?
I like Stephen Fry's definition of (good) science as: "Humility in the face of facts". I hadn't thought of applying that definition to religion, and the last place I would have expected to look would have been in the Vatican!
[A Vatican view of Science and Religion]
[A Buddhist view of Science and Religion]
[Climbing Mount Improbable]
[The amazing Mandelbrot Set: An insight into Nature's beautiful complexity]
[Permalink to this post]
Science aims to build a body of knowledge in a very self-critical way. Adding to this body of knowledge is a very difficult, painstaking process (the scientific method), and one that is firmly based on objective evidence.
Religion could perhaps be defined as a belief system that (by its nature) is not based on objective evidence.
Here, for what it's worth, is my personal summary of each of them:
The situation looks kind of symmetrical, in a way, except that a strong case could be made that the worst aspects of religion (as practiced by people) have historically caused far more human misery than have the worst aspects of science (as practiced by people). Furthermore, I have to say that in the "worst" department on both sides, it is (almost?) always men causing the misery, not women. Hmmm...
The 14th Dalai Lama (a truly great man) writes: "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview." (see below).
The Vatican is coming to terms with science in a way that (given history and also some misconceptions on my part) I find astonishing (for example, see below).
But in America...
There are so many aspects of "creationism" and "intelligent design" that seem so unintelligent, for example:
How can an intelligent person of today look into the awesome depths of the night sky and believe that the Earth was created in literal accordance with the Bible? Does this person think that stars and galaxies of stars are glowing dots stuck on a celestial dome of some kind?
(Answer: because this form of religion makes you switch off your reasoning brain.)
An intelligent person looks at the wonders of nature and reasons that they couldn't have come about "naturally". I can easily understand why someone who hasn't researched the scientific knowledge doesn't believe that (say) an eyeball could come about through evolution. It's much too complex for that, right? (Actually, not right, but it's still an understandable belief.) But then the person thinks: "I can't believe this because it's too complex. So what I'll believe instead is that there is something unimaginably more complex that is able to create this complexity..." Hello?
I like Stephen Fry's definition of (good) science as: "Humility in the face of facts". I hadn't thought of applying that definition to religion, and the last place I would have expected to look would have been in the Vatican!
[A Buddhist view of Science and Religion]
[Climbing Mount Improbable]
[The amazing Mandelbrot Set: An insight into Nature's beautiful complexity]
[Permalink to this post]
