Science vs. Religion Quite often religious types will claim that science cannot be used to explain everything in the universe. These people would have you to believe that when science can’t be used to explain things, you should automatically fall back on some sort of superstitious spiritual mumbo-jumbo that is unsupportable in any objective sense. The problem with this approach is that there has never been any reasonable evidence that anything exists in our universe which can’t be explained by using rational reasoning and the scientific method. The fact that there are things which we haven’t yet explained fully does not lend any support to irrational or supernatural explanations of those things. If you are one of those theists who believe that there are things that cannot be explained scientifically, I would like to ask you: Do you have any examples of such things? When I ask theists for such examples, they only offer things that can be known through ‘faith.’ In other words, faith is ‘wishful thinking.’ Science and religion are two different disciplines. Stephen J. Gould calls them ‘non-overlapping magisteria.’ This is because science deals with the natural world (real things) were religion deals with the supernatural world (imaginary things). Science and religion are two different methods of gaining knowledge about the world. The only way to determine if either is right or wrong about any given issue is to examine all of the evidence associated with that issue. If the evidence only consists of personal or anecdotal evidence, it is doubtful if you’re going to persuade anyone who hasn’t had a similar experience. If scientific explanations are complex or uncomfortable, that still doesn’t justify brushing them aside and accepting unsupportable alternatives based on subjective personal experiences. If you don’t understand the scientific explanation, that doesn’t mean you get to kick it to the curb and pretend ‘goddidit.’ You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. Religion (the supernatural) reaches conclusions based on dogma and opinion rather than on scientific evidence. Creation “scientists” are never published in peer-reviewed journals. This is because they know their work isn’t real science and a real scientist would laugh at their preposterous theories. Of course the Creation Science crowd likes to claim that this is because of some vast satanic conspiracy against their fundamentalist doctrines. They do this because they think this invented conspiracy relieves them of the burden of proof for their claims. They are trying to base their scientific ideas on their beliefs and their feelings rather than on observable, verifiable evidence. The problem is that emotional issues like religion and religious opinion are separate from factual issues. Science confines itself to the factual realm. Religion belongs in the emotional realm. Believing in something doesn’t make it a fact just because you want it to be so. Religious types like to claim that life can’t be fulfilling without some sort of system of religious belief. I find it difficult to be fulfilled by myth and dogma. Are these people really saying that the wonders revealed by science and the satisfaction brought by increasing knowledge cannot fulfill us? As author Douglas Adams said, “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies living at the bottom of it?” tinyurl/l3lvb2f
Posted on: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:59:21 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015