Book Plunge: Science and Religion

[Apologiaphoenix]

Do science and religion contradict?

The link can be found here

[rogue06]

What is the title of the book?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Science and Religion

[firstfloor]

I suppose you know that religion is composed mainly of ceremonies, rituals, incantations, dogma and that sort of thing. It does not directly approach what science is doing. The interaction you are talking about is really in the area of ethics and morality which are not exclusively religious in nature. It is true that our use of science should take ethics into account.

The conflict between science and religion occurs because religions are dogmatic and science is exactly opposite. So far the required adjustments have always gone towards science because it deals in what may be verified.

[shunyadragon]

I suppose you know that religion is composed mainly of ceremonies, rituals, incantations, dogma and that sort of thing. It does not directly approach what science is doing. The interaction you are talking about is really in the area of ethics and morality which are not exclusively religious in nature. It is true that our use of science should take ethics into account.

The conflict between science and religion occurs because religions are dogmatic and science is exactly opposite. So far the required adjustments have always gone towards science because it deals in what may be verified.

Not all religions are dogmatic when it comes to science. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges that science is the interpreter of the nature of our physical existence, and not in conflict with the spiritual nature of our existence Revealed in religions. The conflict comes when one believes in the literal dogmatic interpretation of scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence.

This includes the writings of the Baha'i Faith, which should be understood in terms of describing the spiritual nature of our existence and human spiritual evolution and not necessarily descriptive of the physical nature of our existence.

[psstein]

There are precious few historians of science in academic postings who hold to the conflict thesis.

[shunyadragon]

There are precious few historians of science in academic postings who hold to the conflict thesis.

That depends on who you consider 'historians of science,' because the 'conflict thesis' requires a Theist perspective. I agree that by far the majority of 'historians of science' and scientists who are Theists do not believe in the 'conflict thesis,' and believe in Theistic Evolution, and other concepts that harmonize religion and science. The 'historians of science' and scientists who are non-Theist believe science is the standard, and are not concerned about, or reject the 'conflict thesis' and the desire to harmonize science and religion.

[psstein]

That depends on who you consider 'historians of science,' because the 'conflict thesis' requires a Theist perspective. I agree that by far the majority of 'historians of science' and scientists who are Theists do not believe in the 'conflict thesis,' and believe in Theistic Evolution, and other concepts that harmonize religion and science. The 'historians of science' and scientists who are non-Theist believe science is the standard, and are not concerned about, or reject the 'conflict thesis' and the desire to harmonize science and religion.

That's not true either. The origins of the conflict thesis are not in atheistic/freethought of the late 19th/early 20th century, but in anti-Catholic thought of the 19th/20th century. Ronald Numbers and David Lindberg are/were both agnostics who did a lot to damage the conflict thesis in the late 20th century.

The vast majority of working historians of science (that is, people with PhDs in the subject who publish via recognized scholarly channels) hold to a complex relationship between the two.

[shunyadragon]

That's not true either. The origins of the conflict thesis are not in atheistic/freethought of the late 19th/early 20th century, but in anti-Catholic thought of the 19th/20th century. Ronald Numbers and David Lindberg are/were both agnostics who did a lot to damage the conflict thesis in the late 20th century.

Being agnostics, clearly justifies my original assertion that pressure from agnostics (basically philosophically naturalists) not significantly different than 19th and 20th century free thought atheist/free thought. They were well justified in anti-Roman Church views.

The vast majority of working historians of science (that is, people with PhDs in the subject who publish via recognized scholarly channels) hold to a complex relationship between the two.

Disagree without citations, this assertion has too high a fog index to be real.

[psstein]

Being agnostics, clearly justifies my original assertion that pressure from agnostics (basically philosophically naturalists) not significantly different than 19th and 20th century free thought atheist/free thought. They were well justified in anti-Roman Church views.

You either misread or ignored what I said: Numbers and Lindberg were agnostics who strongly rejected the conflict thesis. Their work did much to damage the conflict thesis' standing among professional historians of science in the 20th century. Seeing as how the Roman Catholic Church was the biggest patron of science in the medieval/early modern period, no, White and Draper's criticisms are nowhere near justified.

Disagree without citations, this assertion has too high a fog index to be real.

From John Hedley Brooke's Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, p. 5

Serious scholarship in the history of science has revealed so extraordinarily rich and complex a relationship between science and religion in the past that general theses are difficult to explain. The real lesson turns out to be the complexity... Conflicts allegedly between science and religion may turn out to be between rival scientific interests, or conversely between rival theological factions.

Hedley Brooke's book is a standard text in the field. Alternatively, see Numbers' When Science and Christianity Meet or Numbers' and Lindberg's edited volume God in Nature.