Does religious debate hinder scientific progress?

@ddancom,

Dawkins may polarize some religious people, but there would never be a Dawkins if there weren't some extremes within religion that he is responding to. Most people in religion don't care whether they teach evolution in schools, and many otherwise churchgoing people have no problem with science. But there are already polarized activists within religion, and there are already crusty and antagonistic respondants like Dawkins. I doubt he makes much of a difference to the religious community as a whole, and the people he pisses off were probably never going to see his point of view anyway.

0 Replies

@ddancom,

Dawkins is pretty late to the argument really, I prefer Mencken.

I think these two videos will do a lot to explain the tone of the debate in the US (as far as I can tell - I have never been to the US and only tend to catch the media furore about such matters).

YouTube - Edward Caudill The Scopes Trial [1 of 7]

YouTube - Edward Caudill The Scopes Trial [2 of 7]

0 Replies

@ddancom,

Here's the third part, the rest is on YouTube but is a Q&A - these three are the history of the trial.

YouTube - Edward Caudill The Scopes Trial [3 of 7]

0 Replies

@ddancom,

Your post asks a very different question to the title.

If people choose faith over reason, they have already ignored the faculties required to engage serious discourse.

1 Reply

@Parapraxis,

Parapraxis wrote:

Your post asks a very different question to the title.

If people choose faith over reason, they have already ignored the faculties required to engage serious discourse.

But if people choice science without morality, they have already ignored the purpose of science.

Religion is too broad a term, there is only a section of all Christain denomination that through Fundementalism choices Creationism over Darwinism. Other welcome a debate on how God created the universe.

There another more serious issue is embryonic stem cell research, in the media they never differentiate between adult stem cell and embryonic stem cells. In the way they are spinning it they make it seem that religious groups are against progress. The contrary is true they are for progresses but within the parameters of morality.

2 Replies

@neapolitan,

Only in a theocracy could religion really hinder scientific "progress". In other areas of the world one only hinders the other if the practitioners allow it to.

0 Replies

@neapolitan,

neapolitan wrote:

But if people choice science without morality, they have already ignored the purpose of science.

Why is that? Does science have a purpose other than 'finding out how things might work'?

Quote:

Religion is too broad a term, there is only a section of all Christain denomination that through Fundementalism choices Creationism over Darwinism. Other welcome a debate on how God created the universe.

There are plenty of muslims and jews who oppose the theory of evolution and favour scriptural interpretations too.

I welcome debate on how different theological systems explain creation - in religious education classes. I would rather science classes were the preserve of scientific theories and practice.

Quote:

There another more serious issue is embryonic stem cell research, in the media they never differentiate between adult stem cell and embryonic stem cells. In the way they are spinning it they make it seem that religious groups are against progress. The contrary is true they are for progresses but within the parameters of morality.

Within the paramenters of morality - but only on the terms of the religion in question.

What I think damages Christians more than scientific explanations of the mutability of living things is the hypocrisy of practitioners. Jesus preaches turning the other cheek - but his approval is taken for granted by those who war monger. Jesus says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to find salvation - but many of his earthly representatives show no aversion to wealth. Jesus warns his followers that they must expect to be ridiculed - but some Christians demand fake science be respected rather than having their creation story made to look somewhat silly.

Christian morals are even more mutable than living things.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

I do not see how science could be anything other than amoral.

1 Reply

@Parapraxis,

Indeed science is a method with an historical set of attatched dogma, but in reality religion is a method and historical dogma as well. The morality in both is the morality of its practitioners.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Quote:

Indeed science is a method with an historical set of attatched dogma, but in reality religion is a method and historical dogma as well. The morality in both is the morality of its practitioners.

This I would agree with, but I do not necessarily think that the sum of the practioners' morality, or lack thereof, will accurately reflect the morality, or lack thereof, of the practice as a whole.

2 Replies

@Parapraxis,

I was being quite general, almost to the point of glibness

0 Replies

@ddancom,

Quote:

... the sum of the practioners' morality, or lack thereof, will accurately reflect the morality, or lack thereof, of the practice as a whole.

I see no reason why this should not be true for science.

1 Reply

@ddancom,

ddancom wrote:

Do you believe that attacks on religion by scientific figureheads (ie Dawkins) polarize the religious? Considering the world's social climate, it seems that such debate might cause the religious to (be more likely to) view faith and science as irreconcilable.

That's essentially the origin of fundamentalism. Earlier extremists, not unlike Dawkins, were arrogant and hateful toward religious people who were just beginning to think about higher criticism and the cutting edge scientific discoveries. The bombast and hate speech of these extremists caused a reaction - Christian fundamentalism.

Debate and questioning religion, in of itself, is not the problem. The problem is the way in which people go about this. We have to remember that people do have feelings, and when figures like Dawkins go out of their way to enrage a certain portion of the population, that population will naturally rally against those figures and what they represent. It's human nature.

2 Replies

@Parapraxis,

Parapraxis;55001 wrote:

I do not necessarily think that the sum of the practioners' morality, or lack thereof, will accurately reflect the morality, or lack thereof, of the practice as a whole.

Though in extreme cases this has proven to be true. The Nazis used medical science as a form of sadism, and it was not unlike many other examples of wanton sadism by that regime. The Tuskeegee experiment is one of the most glaring examples of unethical science in American history, and it's purely a reflection of racism.

As you and others have been discussing here, science can be thought of as both a tool and a human discipline. If we present it as a tool, then science is no more or less moral than a hammer or a screwdriver -- either can be used to build a house, and either can be used to kill someone.

If we present it as a human discipline, then it is very much a reflection of the moral choices (or at least awareness) of its practicioners.

But then that is true for religion as well. Is religion a tool or is it a human discipline? It's both. The fact that religion (unlike science) moralizes doesn't protect it from acts of immorality.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Quote:

... The fact that religion (unlike science) moralizes doesn't protect it from acts of immorality.

It could be argued that religious cannon protects religion from immorality. If doctrine is incorrectly interpreted, it could be said that so called "practitioners" aren't really practitioners at all.

Of course, this is fallacious because a morally correct interpretation of doctrine in one time frame may very well be considered immoral in another (ie Salem Witch Trials).

Perhaps then, religion creates it's own collective morality (Of course, differing cross-culture). Would it not be true then that this collective morality protects religion from acts of immorality?

1 Reply

@ddancom,

ddancom wrote:

It could be argued that religious cannon protects religion from immorality.

Religious canon is just an assertation of to which degree a particular religious authority suggests a particular text or doctrine be regarded as efficient and/or insightful religious teaching.

Therefore canon is only useful as a moral code if the authority who decide whether or not it is moral are themselves moral.

In the early days of Christianity, for example, it was decided that the old testament was canonical, that certain gospels were canonical, that the letters of Paul and some other bits were canonical. Other teachings, some of which were a lot more moral in many respects, were deemed apocryphal.

So to look to the Bible as a moral code is to be given a confusing picture. One receives the ten commandments, which seem a mixture of common sense mixed with a guideline on how to protect a monotheism - you also recieve the laws of Moses - which preach death and destruction to non-believers and homosexuals and all manner of other unpleasantnesses.

You get the lessons of Jesus - preaching universal love and tolerance, next to Paul who reasserts the abomination of homosexuality and a host of other nasty ideas.

So someone who accepts the bible as the word of God - as most Christians are want to do - can find a scriptural imperative for a wide range of moral viewpoints. Some good, some bad. There were Christians who were great slavers - there were Christians who were great emancipators. There were Christians who were peacemakers - there were Christians who were war mongers.

And at any point in history, and at numerous points, Christians who disagreed with the morality of another group of Christians were able to point to certain parts of the bible and say: "Those guys are not real Christians".

Leading to schism after schism, all of whom had their own particular canon.

This is what I think you mean when you say:

Quote:

If doctrine is incorrectly interpreted, it could be said that so called "practitioners" aren't really practitioners at all.

Of course, this is fallacious because a morally correct interpretation of doctrine in one time frame may very well be considered immoral in another (ie Salem Witch Trials).

Perhaps then, religion creates it's own collective morality (Of course, differing cross-culture). Would it not be true then that this collective morality protects religion from acts of immorality?

I don't see how it can - because religious authorities still disagree over what is moral - and immoral acts continue to be committed in the name of religion.

If religion were creating some sort of collective cultural morality then why, as a quick example, are so many Europeans angry at the Catholic Churches continued policy of teaching people in the third world that condoms cause AIDS?

What I DO think happens over time is that powerful moral arguments seep into the collective consciousness. In this regard moral teachers are responsible. A great many moral teachers have been religious - Jesus is undoubtably a great moral teacher in my eyes even if I think he was nothing more than a mortal man. Emily pankhurst is a great moral teacher in my eyes and I don't even know to what degree she was religious.

It doesn't require religious inspiration to have one's eyes opened to an injustice, and I think morality is a process by which we learn of injustices, empathise with those who suffer from them and adjust our way of life to ensure less injustice in the future.

I would say neither religion or science necessarily be utilised in such a process, and both have often been utilised in direct opposition to it.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That's essentially the origin of fundamentalism. Earlier extremists, not unlike Dawkins, were arrogant and hateful toward religious people who were just beginning to think about higher criticism and the cutting edge scientific discoveries. The bombast and hate speech of these extremists caused a reaction - Christian fundamentalism.

This is so deliberately misleading. Fundamentalism did not arise simply out of conflict with anti-Christian aggressors but mainlyfrom divisions within Christianity in how to tackle modern issues: that is, the largest contributiong factor was theology. Thelogical attempts to interpret scripture in light of social and technological progress led to division in beliefs. While external criticism was an important factor in influencing Protestant denominations to address issues relating the Church and modernism, fundamentalism ultimately arose from conflict between liberal and conservative Protestants. As Protestant denominations became more progressive, disgruntled fundamentalists arose and either formed their own orthodox denominations or fought within their denominations to steer them back toward fundamental beliefs. But hey, if blaming atheists will unite you, you have my blessing.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Quote:

I see no reason why this should not be true for science.

Quote:

Though in extreme cases this has proven to be true. The Nazis used medical science as a form of sadism, and it was not unlike many other examples of wanton sadism by that regime. The Tuskeegee experiment is one of the most glaring examples of unethical science in American history, and it's purely a reflection of racism.

As you and others have been discussing here, science can be thought of as both a tool and a human discipline. If we present it as a tool, then science is no more or less moral than a hammer or a screwdriver -- either can be used to build a house, and either can be used to kill someone.

If we present it as a human discipline, then it is very much a reflection of the moral choices (or at least awareness) of its practicioners.

But then that is true for religion as well. Is religion a tool or is it a human discipline? It's both. The fact that religion (unlike science) moralizes doesn't protect it from acts of immorality.

I did not mean to imply it was true for religion, but not science. I do not believe it is necessarily true for either.

I do not see that an abstraction, such as "science" or "religion", could have a morality, or lack thereof, in itself. If it is a reflection of those who use it and that is the determining factor of whether "science" or "religion" is moral or not, certainly immoral acts have been done in both practices. But the diversity of both may blur clarity of the reflection.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That's essentially the origin of fundamentalism. Earlier extremists, not unlike Dawkins, were arrogant and hateful toward religious people who were just beginning to think about higher criticism and the cutting edge scientific discoveries. The bombast and hate speech of these extremists caused a reaction - Christian fundamentalism.

I seem to recall numerous cartoons from opponents of evolution depicting Darwin and others as atavistic at the time.

I think it would be pretty hard to say a particular set of bombatic individuals are more at fault than another. There were probably secular or atheistic demogogues who were keen to leep on the bandwagon of evolution when it first appeared in order to attack religion, just as there were religious demogogues who launched into a tirade on scientific discoveries and theories that didn't support their chosen creation myth.

And that is still how it is today.

1 Reply

Does religious debate hinder scientific progress?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know