The Hidden Dimensions Of Science Vs. Religion

[BridgeTheGap]

Have the extremes of the Science vs. Religion run their course? Is it time to step beyond the vision of Science and Spirituality as a one-dimensional spectrum? Is it time to say to those who fight from the poles of that spectrum “enough!” and move on?
This question drew sparks in the science blogosphere, last month. I was glad to see the issue raised. The extremes of the science and religion debate have had their say. They offer little to us anymore but a tired standard that fails to meet the most important challenge of our moment – the need to create something new.
In struggling to meet our challenge, we might call on a metaphor from science itself. To overcome the exhausted linearity of the science and religion debate we must, literally rise above it. We must go orthogonal and find another dimension for the discourse.
The poles of the debate are well known. On one side are the religious fundementalists brandishing scripture like bullies and willing to force their particular interpretations of their particular religions into textbooks and courthouses.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/07/26/128769603/the-hidden-dimensions-of-science-vs-religion?sc=fb&cc=fp

[nenagh]

1. Very interesting....

Thank you for posting this article.. :)

[MisterP]

2. I have only one real issue here: "strident atheists are infinitely more tolerent and less damaging"

Sam Harris endorses torture and Dawkins, Fallaci, and Hitchens typically sound like Le Pen or Ann Coulter when it comes to Mooslimes, except that Coulter has turned against the Afghan War

obviously this doesn't apply to all atheists

[Deep13]

6. Harris does not endorse torture.

He poses it as an acedemic exercise in his book to explore the nature of morality and the basis for what people are prepared to accept and what they aren't.

The Christian and Muslim record on torture is too well known to need repeating here.

Also, I challenge you to find one inaccurate thing that Dawkins or Hitchens have said about either Islam or Muslims. (I haven't read Fallaci.)

[Orsino]

23. And never mind the millions who endorse torture...

...when it's called Hell, and God does it to everyone they disapprove of.

[dtexdem]

3. Oh, those dementias aren't hidden at all.

They get way too much press.

[Deep13]

4. What's extreme about trying to find the truth?

How is testing an idea against verifiable fact in the least bit extreme? Just because two sides of an argument can make similar claims does not mean each point of view is equally valid.

If you find some verifiable evidence that actually supports the supernatural claims of any religion, then we can talk about compromise. Until then, scientifically verified fact is as close to being right as we are going to get and religious claims are still dead wrong. The fact that some people are offended by that or that it hurts their feelings does not change the reality of the situation one bit.

[mike_c]

5. I'm sorry-- I don't understand the need "to create something new...."

Color me absolutist, I suppose, but while the debate between the poles of that continuum is unresolved, it's hard to see how moving the debate to something else entirely contributes to resolving it. And if it is ever resolved-- and frankly, I think it was decisively resolved a long time ago-- then there really isn't any reason to search for resolution elsewhere, is there?

[dmallind]

7. Great no problem - as soon as we are shown where religion generates new knowledge of course

If you want something new, we probably want it to be epistemologically valid, right? So let's start with the model for how religion contributes to a cooperative dialogue seeking new information..

[tridim]

8. Bottom line, science is much more interesting than the anything in the bible

Especially today's cutting edge physics, it's not even close.

If "God" (and not humans) had written the Bible, that wouldn't and shouldn't be the case.

[lob1]

9. What is extreme science? Define it. Tell me an

example. Because there are crazy religions, there must be crazy sciences?

[zipplewrath]

10. Oh, plenty

There were the alchemists, then there are the cold fusion folks. There's the zero point energy folks.

[physioex]

12. Hmmm....

The alchemists were just early chemists. Cant comment on cold fusion. Zero point energy does exist just like virtual particles that come briefly into existance and disappear. Ofcourse we have no way harness zero point energy.

[Jim__]

22. Where did you see a reference to "extreme science"?

The article is about the extremes of the science/religion debate. From the article: The extremes of the science and religion debate have had their say.

[zipplewrath]

11. They aren't in conflict

We bring them into conflict, but technically there is no conflict. Science has nothing to do with religion. Religion has nothing to do with science. The conflict comes from various peoples quest for power over others. Some try to use science, or the trappings thereof and some try to use religion. The only debate should be about how we choose to exert power over each other, if at all.

[physioex]

14. Yes but.....

The power has been more biased towards the Church historically from Galelio onwards.

[zipplewrath]

15. Oh pish posh

Religion has almost completely ceased being a source of any "new" knowledge. Schools teach predominately science based ciriculums, even in religious schools. The religion itself is often taught in the manner of a dead language. There's been little "new" in the religion realm for several decades. Heck, I can probably count on one hand the number of new major religions that have popped up in the last century. The vast majority of any industrial society is based upon science. Heck much of the law, from building codes to market regulations, is based upon sciience. Many of the derivative products that were being sold in the last 2 decades were designed by top mathmeticians, so complex that many of the accountants barely understood how they worked.

[laconicsax]

17. Sorry, wrong.

Religion, specifically Christianity in this country, creates the conflict by making false empirical claims about the physical world. A large percentage of people believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 6 days. That is an empirical claim that is absolutely false. In certain states, science teachers are prohibited from teaching students it didn't happen exactly as written in Genesis--they can only teach that 'one side' says that the universe is 13.6 billion years old and if a student cites the Bible or their religion, the teacher has to acknowledge fiction as an 'alternative explanation.'

The same goes for teaching evolution and human origin. Teachers aren't allowed to say that the Biblical account is wrong, but is another side to the story.

If you don't see any inherent conflict in that, then that's your problem.

[zipplewrath]

18. That's not a conflict of science and religion

That's a conflict between people wanting to run schools. That's a power struggle and it is creating conflict to try to gain power. That has little to do with religion or science. Power will always attempt to use anything it can to create conflict.

[laconicsax]

19. Yeah...creationism is a curriculum dispute, not a religious issue...

:eyes:

[zipplewrath]

21. It's not

Not within any particular religion, and there is little if any conflict between religions over the issue. Science and religion have no common borders except within issues of public education.

[laconicsax]

25. A sizeable percentage of Christians believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

They do so because a literal reading of their holy book says exactly that. You're saying that science and religion don't overlap, yet here is a perfect example of how they do.

The Bible, if taken literally, makes empirical claims about the physical world. To invoke NOMA, shows an ignorance of this or an unwillingness to face the facts.

The conflict isn't the result of education policy, it plays itself out in school boards because people believe the empirical claims made by their religion.

[AlecBGreen]

20. That is an empirical claim that is absolutely false.

"A large percentage of people believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 6 days. That is an empirical claim that is absolutely false. "

Though I agree with your conclusion that the earth is far older than 10,000 years, it is not 'absolutely false.' Rather you should say there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that supports that hypothesis. According to how I was taught, NOTHING in science can be proven 'true' or 'false' but rather supported by evidence or not. The only things which are "proven" are mathematical formulas. Everything else is on a sliding scale of evidence in support of and against the hypothesis. Its a subtle but important difference.

My old physics teacher (and current boss) would be disappointed in me if I didnt comment on this one :)

[laconicsax]

24. It isn't just that no evidence supports the notion of a young earth...

All available evidence from multiple disciplines directly contradicts the young earth hypothesis. No evidence even suggests that the earth (or the universe for that matter) is in the neighborhood of 10,000 years old.

In fact, a young Earth/universe is impossible, given the evidence. If something is demonstrably impossible, it is fair to say that it is absolutely false. Cosmology, physics, chemistry, and biology would have to undergo complete rewrites just to make a young earth possible.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. There is no debate. Science and religion are two completely different things.

Science is about reality. Religion is about how a person feels about reality.

Just as I used to tell my wife - 'Your feelings are not reality - they are your reflection of reality.'

We're divorced now.

[Jim__]

16. I agree with Barbara Forrest (as summarized by Chris Mooney).

Chris Mooney's summary of Barbara Forrest's argument:

Forrest then gave three reasons that secularists should not alienate religious moderates:

1. Etiquette. Or as Forrest put it, “be nice.” Religion is a very private matter, and given that liberal religionists support church-state separation, we really have no business questioning their personal way of making meaning of the world. After all, they are not trying to force it on anybody else.

2. Diversity. There are so many religions out there, and so much variation even within particular sects or faiths. So why would we want to criticize liberal Christians, who have not sacrificed scientific accuracy, who are pro-evolution, when there are so many fundamentalists out there attacking science and trying to translate their beliefs into public policy?

3. Humility. Science can’t prove a negative: Saying there is no God is saying more than we can ever really know empirically, or based on data and evidence. So why drive a wedge between religious and non-religious defenders of evolution when it is not even possible to definitively prove the former wrong about metaphysics?