Rule,
I hope you don’t mind my creating separate threads for each of my points that you commented on, but the thread was getting confusing and this might help me keep it straight. For as you so aptly demonstrated, I am a person who can not handle complexities. The separate threads will help me deal with these “marvels which are beyond my scope”.
You bring up several credible examples of religion interfering with Science. First of all, religion goes somewhat deeper than my arguments. Religion means too many different things to too many different people. I prefer to talk at the Theism level. Really…you don’t want me quoting scriptures, do you? But your charge that Theism is a great impediment to science is a gross exaggeration. Theism can not stop man’s curiosity. Men of science love it and nothing will stop them. They don’t do it out of courage; they are in love with it. In which of the examples you gave has Theism brought development to a stop. Not in a single one. Many great scientists are/were theists. Copernicus was a religious. Mendel was a monk. Here’s a bit about Einstein; please explain how his faith hampered his work.
“But throughout his life, Einstein was consistent in rejecting the charge that he was an atheist. “There are people who say there is no God,” he told a friend. “But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos,” he explained.â€
More than just pointing out some prominent scientists who are theists, wouldn’t it be better to talk about the intertwined history of religion and science? For whatever reason, the search function has been giving me guff lately, but I’ve previously discussed the role that belief in a created (and therefore inherently knowable) universe played a vital role in the creation of modern science. Heck, a lot of early scientists were simply trying to understand God’s creation.
Now, clearly there reaches a point where it becomes one-or-the-other, but I’d argue that those who haven reached such a point needn’t be viewed as the most “authentic” forms. A lot of modern fundamentalism is a reaction to the success of science and how it interacts with their reliance of “God of the Gaps” arguments, so they have to decry science as false. As others far more vested in these things than I am have commented, it makes them look quite foolish. The better option, IMHO, and one that has been present throughout history, is that of synthesis. When new information is gained, it seems reasonable to me to try and incorporate it as best as possible; or just accept the contradictions and use faith as an intermediary.
Religion doesn’t have to impede science, but we can list a variety of good cases where it has. Not just theism, but just about any philosophical system, really. But philosophical systems by themselves are relatively toothless, entrenched power bases that have a vested interest in any particular philosophy. Well, now you are cooking with gas. But I’m not sure that theism can be specifically singled out on that one.
Good idea Xunzian! After all; in the Western world, most of the great universities were founded and funded by religious institutions. These institutions revived and enhanced classical philosophy with the help of the Iberian Arabs. Out of classical philosophy grew the methods of observation and thinking that became the scientific method. And out of the scientific method grew all of Science. Here’s an article by somebody at Columbia U which describes the matter much better than I can.
Like Rule says though, Science and Theism have had clashes. But other things hamper science too. The financial philosophy of how national budgets should be allocated probably has a much larger impact on Science than Theism ever had!
It’s self-evident. Even in your quote he alludes to being an atheist, just not in the normal sense. Go read a biology on Einstein by someone without a religious agenda.
An interesting idea, Anthem. There are 57 varieties of Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Buddhists. It would be astounding if there were only one flavor of Atheist. I wonder how many ways of not believing there can be.