| Science and Religion Dec 17th 2011, 11:01 The real problem between science and religion lies in the comparison of science as an ideal and religion as it is practiced. Science as an ideal requires a willingness to question assumptions and an open mind, but in practice scientists are just as pig-headed and closed-minded as the average human being. Science is not truly objective and dispassionate when it comes to the individual scientists; where the ideal and practice do meet, however, is when it comes to peer review. In the end, all scientists have to submit their data and ideas to others for review. If the only support they end up producing is their own faith, then their field will move on without them. If, however, their stubborn tenacity has led them to interesting data that no one else has come across, then they will be vindicated. Thus, no matter how dogmatic an individual may be, the system itself tends to remain very undogmatic and disinterested. When comparing science and religion, what should we place on the side of science: the ideal or the reality? That’s a difficult question to answer. The choice of the ideal is entirely reasonable, but there are good arguments for picking the reality â€" that is, after all, the way actual scientists go about their daily work. On the other hand, the ideals of science are expressed a great deal in the overall structure of science, so it’s not as though the ideal is just a dream. And what do we place on the side of religion â€" ideal or reality? If we are comparing the ideal of science, it seems unfair not to use the ideal of religion. However, while we are able to identify some sort of scientific ideal, there doesn’t appear to be any religious ideal. Every religion is different, and even within religions there is extensive variation. All we really have is the reality of religion â€" and that reality is very different from not only the ideal of science, but also the reality. 
Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? This probably isn’t necessary. As stated above, it isn’t a requirement of religion to be closed-minded, to avoid questioning assumptions, and to reject peer review. It may be the norm, but it doesn’t have to be. What this means is that whether religion and science are compatible depends upon religious believers. If they submit their beliefs to scientific standards of inquiry, then compatibility will exist. Otherwise, it cannot. Addressing topics such as intelligent design, creationism, sociobiology, the nature of the soul, and near-death experiences, this is a great collection of essays that anyone interested in this topic should read. The articles are detailed without being dense, informative without being dry. « Back...  | |
No comments:
Post a Comment