We live in a country where one has the freedom of religion. And I am completely for that. In fact, I often feel that groups like the ACLU is way out of line, challenging the rights for individuals to pray in public buildings or using Judo-Christian Symbols in monuments. Those things have personal meaning to many people, and to take them away is the same in my mind as shoving them down a persons throat. But the point of my article is not to address the death of religion (as I think that day is far from, if never, going to actually be a reality). Instead, I am addressing how science often finds itself under attack by religion, even in a country that is supposedly as educated as ours.
Religion is in itself not outright a problem. It helps explain things that science can never answer (or at least, likely never will), such as meaning of the soul, if their is a God and what it/he/she/them is like, etc. However, we have hit a point where religion still attempts to cling to realms that it should not, namely science and history. Religion was/is used to explain the mysteries of this world. These used to include things from why an apple falls down to where babies come from. But these fields are within the realm of the physical and do not touch the metaphysical. God is not the force that makes the apple fall, the intrinsic force of gravity does. Lightning strikes when the difference in charge between the ground and clouds becomes too great and the electrons jump from earth to the clouds. These, amongst millions of other discoveries, explain the world not only in a way that does not rely on the metaphysical but also in a way that allows for us to predict and manipulate the world to a degree that is supersedes anything our ancestors could have possibly imagined. And our history and origin also have left the mists of legends and histories past. Indeed, we have through genetics and archaeology begun to trace our ancestry back to creatures from millions of years ago (not the 6,000 or so predicted by the Bible and other religious texts).
The problem arises when individuals and religious institutions refuse to recognize the science before them and instead cling to things that fly in the face of evidence. For example, we know beyond a doubt the decay rate of carbon and other atomic particles to within fractions of percents, and these show us the age of the earth and fossils as much older than most religious texts describe. Physics backs this with the movement of the universe and other evidence gathered by telescopes. Science has become more and more capable of explaining physical aspects of our word as religion finds itself more and more incapable of explaining why things are the way they are. And this is because religion's purpose was never to give an explanation of the physical world, but instead explore the meaning behind it. When lightning stikes, religion is not supposed to tell you how it happened. It is supposed to tell you that it is a sign of God's displeasure (maybe, I do not really know). This doesn't mean the science is invalid, it just means that there is a meaning on the metaphysical level. And this is the simple one. The story of Adam and Eve is not suppose to tell us how, scientifically, life came about (in fact, the bible itself cannot decide, as Genesis 1 describes a completely opposite order of creation of life). It is to explain why humanity cannot achieve true perfection on this plain, it explains where sin originated from, it explains that God loves us but why we are not with him in paradise. It is suppose to give a spiritual aspect to our very existence. To read it as a historical account is to at the very worst ignore these intents and at the very best ignore the world in which we live in.
Not only does religion sometimes ignore science, it sometimes bastardizes it. Intelligent design has been proposed as an alternative scientific theory to Natural Selection. The problem with this is that it is a pseudoscience, such as Phrenology (measuring parts of the skull so as to determine intelligence, creativity, etc.), which attempts to use scientific information coupled with preconceived theories and metaphysical properties so as to create an explanation. But like most pseudosciences, it is not solely used as a explanation for how/why something is a certain way, but it also tries to prove its original basis or support the proponents propaganda. For example, phrenology was usually backed by proponents who believe minorities and women were less intelligent and intellectually capable, and this showed as the measurements for intellectual ability were based on Caucasian male measurements. Intelligent design suffers the same flaw as it both attempts to prove there is a God as at the same time it relies on him as the basis of the explanation (circular logic). The fact that this is being demanded to be taught as an actual scientific theory would be a slap in the face of anyone who calls themselves a scientist, whether they are theists or not.
Philosophy is defined as "a set system of beliefs and thoughts pertaining to one or more subject". And I do not see how Religion should differ., at least in our school systems. Instead of outright banning it, why not teach about the different religious viewpoints (such as intelligent design, or the beliefs of the Judo-Christian, Eastern and Islamic traditions). This will allow for people to discuss their religious beliefs in the classroom without ridicule, and as long as discussions are kept respectful, allow for discourse on the varying traditions and beliefs. In fact, I feel this will help create a greater sense of tolerance for different religions .
Furthermore, even though science may always tell us the how something happens, it can never tell us the metaphysical why or should. Science can always tell us if something is possible and why it is possible, but it lacks the ability to tell us if, for example, we should clone a human. Religion and philosophy allow these questions to be addressed. I am not advocating that we should cling to these beliefs in the face of things that are scary or bizarre ( For example, cloning a human heart or blood so as to transplant a person should be legal, though it sounds Frankenstein), but it should be heeded so as to prevent travesties (such as the concept of the early 1900's Eugenics Projects or, say, cloning living humans for those cloned hearts and blood). Nor should it try and replace scientific fact, such as in the regards to the origin of life or Earth's history. And finally, it should not cause us to walk in fear of science, but instead learn about it and question it through our beliefs.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment