Why You Might Have to Choose Between Science and Faith

[longship]

1. It's a difficult problem, probably without a resolution.

First, two points:

1. Yes, I can understand and sympathize with the argument in the article and even the rational behind the argument. The loony creationists have always argued that "Darwinism" (their scary word for biology) equals atheism. Pitting science versus religion definitely plays into that creationist narrative. I cannot support that it's a good idea to do that.

2. However, the creationists are definitely making a claim that religion is against science in everything they say and do. They are trying very, very hard to redefine science as supporting supernatural explanations, which goes against everything which makes science the most productive endeavor in history. As soon as one says, "God did it," that ends science.

I can appreciate the position of Richard Dawkins that the theory of evolution, and science in general, is a killer to religion. Even Neil deGrasse Tyson says similar, as do many other scientists. This NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) thinking cannot be correct. Gould was clearly wrong about that because people like the creationists are overlapping all the time.

Do I think science and religion are at loggerheads? The actions of many of the most devoted believers says yes. There are many scientists who say no. The funny thing is the most outspoken of them happen to be believers, like Collins (cited in the article).

My point here is that, the extent to which the religious tread over the line and do what they are doing is the extent to which one can say that the magisteria are indeed overlapping and that science and religion cannot mix. This is in spite of the undoubtedly many counter examples like Francis Collins.

I tend to side with Dawkins on this, but I am not convinced that he's right. But religion's history on this supports Dawkins.