OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Its War!

Entry 715, on 2008-03-06 at 21:06:49 (Rating 3, Religion)

Many people believe there is a war between religion and science. Many others (both believers and scientists) deny this and say the two are compatible because they deal with separate areas of human knowledge. I have accepted both answers to this question at different times but now I think I have the ultimate answer.

One problem associated with evaluating this idea is turning science and religion into single monolithic structures. There are many forms of religion, and while science is ideally a single unit individual scientists are not. So it turns out that the vast majority of science isn't at war with religion but a large part of religion *is* at war with science.

So how do I justify this conclusion? Well science involves the pursuit of objective truth through a rigorous process of hypothesising, testing, and modifying theories. It follows this course independently of religious belief (at least it should, but especially earlier in science's history, religion did get in the way). If a scientific theory supports religious belief that's fine, it just doesn't matter. Equally if a scientific theory contradicts religion we just don't care (or shouldn't) because its the pursuit of truth that really matters.

So saying that science is at war with religion doesn't really make sense. Science just doesn't care about religion, so how can it be at war with it? This isn't 100% true because there are some situations where religion does matter. Some scientists are specifically targeting religion for criticism (Richard Dawkins is the obvious example) but that's not really science causing the conflict because while Dawkins criticises religion from a scientific perspective its not really science he's doing at the time.

There are also branches of science which study religion. For example, psychologists find the phenomenon interesting. But in that situation they are studying religion as a psychological phenomenon, hopefully in an objective way, so again it can't really be said that science is at war, even if the conclusions of the research are negative towards religion.

One area where science might be said to be at war with religion is related to fundamental world views. I know some people will debate this with me but you can't support religion (in any recognisable form) if you have an objective scientific empiricist world view. Religious people must have a faith based world view to some extent and science specifically rejects this because it almost inevitably leads to false beliefs.

So really science isn't at war with religion at all. The scientific method rejects ignorance through lack of critical thought and rejects any world view which leads to this, but that isn't really like being at war. The reality is that science is never really at war with anything, it just follows the established protocols for establishing objective truth without any requirement for conflict (at least in an ideal world).

But what about religion's alleged war with science? Well that's a different thing entirely. There are religious people who fully accept science and think they are compatible but I think they are just fooling themselves. To make the two compatible you have to either make your religious views so indistinct that they become almost meaningless or create some artificial barrier between the two worlds, when only one of the worlds really exists!

So apart from the people who have created an artificial "demilitarised zone" in their lives there is a war between religion and science but it only happens in one direction. Religion has historically claimed to have the answers to the great mysteries of the world. When Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Hubble, Planck, and others came along and showed the religious explanations of the world were pathetically wrong it meant religion had to either become irrelevant or begin a battle.

The most obvious example is the war against evolution. Science proved that religious explanations of the origin and development of life are untrue. That wasn't because it wanted a war with religion, its because it wanted to find out what is true. But many religions couldn't accept that (although I know many other religions do) so they started a war against evolution. They weren't interested in the truth, or what was best or what was moral, they just wanted to destroy the threat.

Many moderate believers will say that I'm talking about the behaviour of fundies and pretending that applies to all religious people. Well that's not quite right. I know many religious people accept evolution, but they can't accept all of science or they couldn't be religious. They have to reject something. Maybe its the Big Bang, evolution, global warming, the need for contraception, the need for stem cell research, the results of research into religious phenomena, the naturalist world view, or just the scientific method in general.

If you accept all of that what's left to be religious about? Nothing really. So religion can only survive by resisting science so there is a war but its a one way war which religion can never win. They say the first casualty of war is the truth, and in the war by religion on science that has never been more true. But truth has a way of establishing itself in the end. Its just a matter of how long it is before religion loses the war.

Comment 10 (1314) by OJB on 2008-03-21 at 16:24:01: (view earlier comments)

If the church not threatened then what is the problem? I still don't see why anyone would care so much about the program if it didn't have some potential negative effect.

You must be aware of the bleeding statues that some religious people claim exist and say are miracles. And then the church has to send someone over to see if its a real miracle. Surely you can see this is a satire of that. OK, its a bit gross but I can't think of a better way to make the point about how silly the whole miracle business is.

I honestly don't think that it would worry me if something I was involved with was satirised that way. For example, computer geeks are often satirised but I just laugh at it. I guess we just won't ever agree on this because its really just a matter of opinion in the end.

Comment 11 (1317) by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 22:00:27:

My point being that 'threatened' was the wrong word. 'Offended' might be better.

You just don't get it do you? The best you can do is say "OK, its a bit gross", and then you make some stupid comparison with a tease on computer geeks. Let me make a comparison more real to you....lets say the subject of the South Park episode was your mother, wife or daughter. The women closest to you in your life are unjustly and disgustingly ridiculed. Are you still cool with this? Would you let it slide by on the basis of just satire? Or perhaps you would be a teeny weeny bit offended? Hope that makes things clearer now.

Comment 12 (1328) by OJB on 2008-03-22 at 19:58:21:

Yes, I do see your point now. I guess I would be upset if a friend was ridiculed that way. Its a different world being religious which I often have problems relating to. The idea that anyone would feel that attached to a character from a 2000 year old myth is just so bizarre that I didn't even consider it.

Comment 13 (1340) by SBFL on 2008-03-30 at 21:50:25:

Obviously you don't feel the same way about Mary, but many Christians feel close to her, especially Catholics who place a special reverence on her. The point being one could at least extend tolerance to other people in their beliefs and cultures, even if there are not your own, understanding how they may feel by drawing a parallelism with a example that could affect yourself. That is why I haven't supported the Mohammad cartoons for instance. They don't offend me obviously but I respect they offend others and therefore think we should all just chill out a bit and try to build bridges, rather than destroy them. Confrontation doesn't usually achieve a hell of a lot, eh?

Comment 14 (1362) by OJB on 2008-03-31 at 18:31:03:

This is an issue I'm not so certain about now. I've blogged about it today. Warning: there's some scathing, sarcastic comments about the credibility of Christianity there!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.