Science vs Religion

For some reasons these two ideologies can't co-exist in a peaceful manner, which is funny considering they both work for peace and the betterment of mankind. I've been seeing more and more religion-bashing in the name of science. Frankly, it makes me sick.

What I see is a bunch of five-year-olds who aren't mature enough to see another person's point of view or respect differences squabbling over the Origin of the Cookie. One group claims the cookie came from store bought ingredients and was assembled over a period of time that involved mixing, baking, and cooling. The other group claims the cookie came from their lunch box and they brought it from home.

Both groups are correct. The cookie did come from ingredients, and the cookie was also in the lunch box. A mature person can look at this argument from a distance and see where each group is coming from. I suggest we take a similar approach to the Science vs Religion debate.

On one side we have a group of people who have a body of historical and physical evidence. They have eye witness accounts to support their views. The have hunches, or theories, that they are actively searching for evidence to support. They have established modes of research that can be replicated on a reliable schedule.

On the other side we have a group of people who have a body of historical and physical evidence. They have eye witness accounts to support their views. The have hunches, or theories, that they are actively searching for evidence to support. They have established modes of research that can be replicated on a reliable schedule.

Test time: Which group is which?

This is where each group will start spluttering in protest. Let's break down the arguments, shall we?

Point 1: Religions each have a text of some kind. Science argues these are of no value because they could be fiction, but not the historians who use the exact same thing for their research. INVALID

Point 2: Religion has people who claim they have seen miracles. Science argues that the eye witnesses are unreliable because they are claiming something that could not happen. Not only is this a circular argument but it invalidates most science. How many have you seen an abyssal plain? Anyone? Walked on the moon? No? INVALID

Point 3: Religion claims that if you follow a set pattern you will see the same results they record, allowing for free will or chaos theory. Science says that all true facts must be able to be recreated in an identical fashion every single time. Anyone who has taken a science class and missed a problem on a test knows this doesn't happen, especially in math. The scientist will argue that you did something wrong, which is exactly what the religious will say. INVALID

We can reverse all these arguments and insert things like evolution, big bang theory, and calculus for the religious terms.

What it comes down to is the reliability of witnesses, which is such a dicey place to be. A hundred years ago there were scientists giving opium to infants because it calmed them down and made them happy and was therefore a Good Thing. You can guess how much my eye twitches at that idea.

I know Science is screaming, "I'm not like that any more! I don't dig up bodies for kicks any more! That's ancient history!" And I give science full credit for evolving past the primitive form. On the other hand, a large part of the science group likes to judge religion based on the most primitive forms. I'm afraid neither group can fully divorce itself from the skeletons in the closet (even the ones that are correctly labeled).

From the outside there is no real difference between science and religion. For the average person the difference between differential equations and praying to the moon goddess for the right answer is nonexistent. Most people have a very limited understanding of the world in general.

Religious people probably understand what they, personally, believe. This is generally not a direct reflection of what their religion believes, or even what their religious text teaches, it is simply what they believe.

Scientists are usually pretty good with their own specialized field. Outside of that, well, biologists will have trouble explaining physics and good luck getting an engineer to explain biochem. Neither group is well grounded in history, and the historians don't understand nearly as much psychology as they need to explain human nature.

Neither group has all the details. There is a tendency to discount the unfamiliar as ridiculous lies. Or, far worse, dismiss something based on one experiment.

"I went to church once and ever since I've known religion was a pack of lies."

"I flew a kite once and it got stuck in a tree, that proves gravity doesn't exist."

That is Bad Science, a crime that should be punishable by death, it really should.

Then people go an top Bad Science with bullying. Every time I see a protestor with some sign about how their religion proves you are a horrible person I have to resist this crazy urge to beat them to death with their own poster. Then I turn around and seeing a scientist ripping apart religion with their supposedly superior intellect and the most circular arguments ever invented. It's enough to drive a girl to overdose on Godiva.

Bullying gets you no where, although I wish it would land you in jail. It doesn't. It just means you are so unsure of your own standing that you can't state your beliefs in a non-confrontational way. Check my Albert's quote up top, that's it really. If you can't state your views in a simple, peaceful manner you don't understand them well enough to be stating anything.

Personally, I have no trouble reconciling science with religion. In my years of study I have never found anything that conflicted with my religious beliefs (Well, the opium thing, but that's ancient history right?). I've invested time studying both science and religion. I enjoy learning about new religions even if I don't agree with them, and I think that may be the key.

You do not need to agree with an idea to study that idea. You can study religion, science, literature, or music and not agree with the concept, or that the piece is art, or that there is any merit to the existence of this thing, but that doesn't mean you can't understand why other people might hold different views. When you resort to "only an idiot would like this" you have put yourself on an island of ignorance.

You say, "I refuse to learn. I refuse to respect you. I refuse to allow differences." Well Hiel, Hitler. You might as well start the bonfire and burn some witches. Different point of views are what allow culture to grow. Those differences fuel creativity and invention. Forcing people to goose-step to your ideology is intellectual death.

Here's a better idea. Say, "We're different. We don't agree. That's cool. Tell me what you believe, and I'll share what we believe. We can find a common ground. We can share our truths. And we can both walk away a little better for this discussion."

Even if the only common ground is "oxygen is good" the hate stops.

Questions and comments welcomed. You are entitled to your own view, even if you don't agree with me, but please don't bash each other.