Raem
30-05-2008, 19:47
There have been religious "debates" on General since the dawn of time (time having dawned in November 2002). I've found myself unsatisfied with most such threads. It seems as if willful misunderstanding and antagonism goes hand in hand with discussions about religious matters. People always make sweeping generalities, wiping away the complex nature of the subjects with a dismissive wave of the hand.
In the interest of nuance, I would like to point out a few things:
Science and religion do not clash, anymore. Science is concerned with the measurable phenomena of reality. Religion has, in the Western societies, largely been relegated to concerning itself with the unreal and supernatural. Some theists will object to "unreal", saying it implies God does not exist. Please consider your own beliefs before you make that objection. If you believe God lies outside of space, time, or matter, then by default God does not exist as part of reality. In the past and in most of the modern world, religions consider themselves the final authority on not just supernature, but on nature as well. This is the arena where science and religion duke it out. So long as religions do not try to create predictive but unfalsifiable theories based on faith and revelation, there is no conflict here.
Philosophy and religion DO clash. Any philosopher with a respect for reason and an understanding of epistemology and metaphysics will discover deep faults in the foundations of religion. Religion is built upon the faults of reason (whether those faults are real or not is one of the matters of debate between atheists and theists). Many of the tenets of science are related to this style of philosophy, which may account for the idea that science and religion clash.
I am an atheist. I am not your enemy unless you want to kill me for my beliefs. Very few of us are enemies here. Hysterical shouting on both sides only serves to undermine the arguments presented. The louder you have to shout something, the less it deserves to be listened to.
These discussions don't have to degenerate into mindless trolling and flamebaiting, but they regularly do. This is understandable, given the passion with which many people hold their religious or irreligious beliefs. It is not necessary to the discussion, though: it is inimical to the free sharing of ideas. There's been enough intellectual intimidation and violence in human history, why create more?
In the interest of nuance, I would like to point out a few things:
Science and religion do not clash, anymore. Science is concerned with the measurable phenomena of reality. Religion has, in the Western societies, largely been relegated to concerning itself with the unreal and supernatural. Some theists will object to "unreal", saying it implies God does not exist. Please consider your own beliefs before you make that objection. If you believe God lies outside of space, time, or matter, then by default God does not exist as part of reality. In the past and in most of the modern world, religions consider themselves the final authority on not just supernature, but on nature as well. This is the arena where science and religion duke it out. So long as religions do not try to create predictive but unfalsifiable theories based on faith and revelation, there is no conflict here.
Philosophy and religion DO clash. Any philosopher with a respect for reason and an understanding of epistemology and metaphysics will discover deep faults in the foundations of religion. Religion is built upon the faults of reason (whether those faults are real or not is one of the matters of debate between atheists and theists). Many of the tenets of science are related to this style of philosophy, which may account for the idea that science and religion clash.
I am an atheist. I am not your enemy unless you want to kill me for my beliefs. Very few of us are enemies here. Hysterical shouting on both sides only serves to undermine the arguments presented. The louder you have to shout something, the less it deserves to be listened to.
These discussions don't have to degenerate into mindless trolling and flamebaiting, but they regularly do. This is understandable, given the passion with which many people hold their religious or irreligious beliefs. It is not necessary to the discussion, though: it is inimical to the free sharing of ideas. There's been enough intellectual intimidation and violence in human history, why create more?