Categories for the science/religion debate

[luckyme]

A Michael Schermer (http://www.nysun.com/article/42267) article in the NYSun reviewing 6 books contained these categories for the religion/science debate.

[ QUOTE ]

1. CONFLICTING-WORLDS MODEL. This "warfare" model holds that science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of knowing, where one is right and the other is wrong. In this model, the findings of modern science are always a potential threat to one's faith and thus they must be carefully vetted against religious truths before acceptance; likewise, the tenets of religion are always a potential threat to science and thus they must be viewed skeptically.

2. SAME-WORLDS MODEL. More conciliatory in its nature, this position holds that science and religion are two ways of examining the same reality; as science progresses to a deeper understanding of the natural world it will reveal that many ancient religious tenets are true.

3. SEPARATE-WORLDS MODEL. On this tier science and religion are neither in conflict nor in agreement. Today it is the job of science to explain the natural world, making obsolete ancient religious sagas of origins and creation. Yet, religion thrives because it still serves a useful purpose as an institution for social cohesiveness and as a guide to finding personal meaning and spirituality.


[/ QUOTE ]

[luckyme]

My natural approach would be same-world, I’m pretty easy going. But I’ve moved to the conflicting worlds view because ( keeping very simple) -
1) the bulk of religions do make strong claims about physical reality.
2) ancient religious beliefs are usually proven false or not applicable at best, it doesn’t matter either way if they are going to be held in limbo until tested. Seems even sillier to hold them as true until tested. I don’t see any role for them.
3) if religious beliefs don’t claim any physical territory then they are essentially psychological and merely act as a framework or crutch for approaches to life that can be achieved in other ways without any mysterious spirits or such.

luckyme

[FortunaMaximus]

Well, I think science's doing well enough as is, even if it's a bloated field. Hey, so's religion.

But the more we define the natural world, the more religion brings certain near-provable theories into much higher scrutiny.

Must've been pretty sleepy when I chose #3, but after a brief nap, I find it's still true to some extent. /images/graemlins/mad.gif Hope that doesn't make me a Scientologisst. But I think we're in a transitory period and that after the war between dogma and proof resolves itself in this early 21st century, the conflict will settle into a separate-worlds model.

Viewed in a larger context, Biblical myths can be proven to be allegorical, or they aren't necessarily time-dependent, as there is reason to redefine Noah's Ark as something that has yet to happen, or take your pick of what's in Relevations.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
GEORGE: By the way, have you spoken to Elaine yet today?

JERRY: No why?

GEORGE: (sighs) She called Susan last night.

JERRY: Oh yeah, I know.

GEORGE: How do you know?

JERRY: Well it was my idea.

GEORGE: Your idea?

JERRY: Yeah.

GEORGE: Wha’d you do that for?

JERRY: She was looking for someone to go to the show with.

GEORGE: Well that was a really stupid thing! You know what's going to happen now?

JERRY: World's collide. (points at George)

GEORGE: Whe ... Well yeah!

JERRY: Because this world is your sanctuary and if that world comes into contact with --

GEORGE: YES! It Blows Up! If you knew that, what did you tell Elaine for?

JERRY: I didn’t know. Kramer told me about the worlds.

GEORGE: You couldn't figure out the “World's Theory” for yourself? It's just common sense. Anybody knows, ya gotta keep your worlds apart. (gesturing with hands going outward)

JERRY: Yeah, I guess I slipped up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody knows you gotta keep your worlds apart

I chose conflicting...

I think I've made it very clear that I consider the basic principles of most religion to almost always be in direct conflict with science.

and of course the other way around as well

[Phil153]

Science and Christianity are in total conflict. You only have to look at how science has beaten religion to a pulp over the last few centuries. This is in spite of religion's (particularly catholics) best efforts to supress truth and reason through force, intimidation and humiliation. If science and religion appear to be in different worlds today, it's because science has done a marvellous job of putting religion in its hole. Mainstream religion today only survives in the places where it can cower, free from the light of science and truth and hiding behind notions of uncertainty and faith. As the light shines further, religion retreats, as it has with embarassing speed over the last 200 years. (another Catholic apology, anyone?)

This of course applies to the retarded religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Scientology, etc), and not to Eastern religions such as Buddhism. People have a deep need for spirituality, faith and the mystical side of life, and science can never provide that. So as long as religions aren't retarded and/or loony, they fit into the separate worlds model.

[madnak]

Same worlds. But I think Christianity is to religion what bloodletting was to science, so I wouldn't call myself "conciliatory."

[bigpooch]

It's not a conflict just with science, but with "truth"!

Clearly, Roman Catholics are in conflict with truth ("how
can a pope be infallible" yada yada yada) and many other
so-called denominations and "cults" (e.g., Scientology,
Jehovah Witnesses, ...) are as well. Islam and Hinduism are
also generally in conflict with truth.

To be a theist not in conflict with "truth", one would
probably be considered "heretical" in almost any "normative"
form of religious belief.

It's not just science that offers truth, but truth is also
found in mathematics and philosophy.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
2. SAME-WORLDS MODEL. More conciliatory in its nature, this position holds that science and religion are two ways of examining the same reality; as science progresses to a deeper understanding of the natural world it will reveal that many ancient religious tenets are true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Understanding e.g. evolution through genetics and the more abstract but equally valid evolution of ideas allows us to understand WHY human beings are moral, WHY we are warlike, so on and so forth.

However, it doesn't give us answers to moral dilemmas that might arise about, for example, going to war against a dictatorship, or donating a kidney to a distant relative.

Religion, if it is not abused, may offer guidance to help us understand ourselves and our motives in the light of our scientific knowledge. We may know that its axioms are untrue, but it gives us a language with which to describe those things we don't understand scientifically.

What's more, we share this language with our ancestors who did not have our scientific knowledge, and so could not possibly pass on their wisdom in the language of today.

(Be that language genetics, pyschology, biology...)

[soon2bepro]

They've been conflicting worlds for much of humans' history, and still are, but more and more they're becoming separate worlds. And for the religious freaks, they'd love to consider them same worlds, but are slowly learning it's a no-no.

[bunny]

I was somewhere between separate and same, recent exposure to debate has persuaded me they're in conflict.

[Piers]

Religion plays an important place in the world, but it has nothing to do with building predictive models. The primary objective of a religion’s core message is to attract punters; there is no conflict with science. Claims to the contrary are generally a consequence of religious PR moves and can be discounted.

Ask yourself what function region performs in the modern world, and then ask yourself what function science performs.

[She]

I would be one of the religious freaks that would love to consider science and religion are two ways of examining the same reality. I personally believe that science will validate whatever is religiously accurate.

I will grant that science cannot be in agreement with all religions, and may in fact not be in agreement with any religion. However I believe that if a certain religion is correct then that will be validated by science, and that when there is a conflict then it is science that should be relied upon, as the facts never lie. It is only our interpretation of them that is fallible.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I was somewhere between separate and same, recent exposure to debate has persuaded me they're in conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. It's hard to not see conflict with any religion that makes a natural claim. It doesn't have to be as silly as 10,000 year old earths or the one person left alive after the plane crash being a interevention miracle ( the 'thank god' claim), simply any claim of supernatural causes is in conflict.

luckyme

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep. It's hard to not see conflict with any religion that makes a natural claim.... simply any claim of supernatural causes is in conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this contradictory when scientists are still open to the possibility of additional dimensions?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep. It's hard to not see conflict with any religion that makes a natural claim.... simply any claim of supernatural causes is in conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this contradictory when scientists are still open to the possibility of additional dimensions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably the same line of argument standard scientists use when trying to quantify QM...

"I don't know, it does funny stuff and won't stay still, so let's account for that with gobbledygook and negative mass."

The awesome thing is they spout this without realizing how ridiculous they sound.

I don't think the Universe is meant to be immutable and fixed. It's evolving too.

[madnak]

Not if those supernatural causes don't produce natural effects.