Thursday, May 15, 2008

There definitely is a conflict between science and religion

In polite society, where we try to put our best face on, and often talk around issues by doing it nicely and politely, it's often customary to adopt positions of neutrality to prevent our discussion partners whom we occaisionally disagree with, from being insulted or to establish that you are approaching a topic from a neutral position out of respect.

In the past, one such "neutral position" has been the one that goes "Science and religion are two different topics, and need not neccesarily be in conflict with one another." Sometimes, we like to add to that that because science deals with the natural world, and is merely a methodology for finding out how things works, and because religion deals with morality and philosophy, that they can't really be in conflict, because they are two entirely different topics. The statement that science and religion do not conflict is sort of a polite man's way of establishing space between religion and science, to assert that there are no conflicts, and that we either are talking science or we are talking religion, but we can't mix them.

Well, after much thought, and a newsgroup discussion, I came to the conclusion that this idea that there is no conflict between religion and science is simply not true. It may be polite to use the statement, but ultimately, it's just not true. There is plenty of conflict between religion and science.

First off, the methodology of science is specifically designed to get to the truth of the matter by seriously probing a topic, testing the results, and going where those facts take you. Religion, by contrast, dictates truth, and nothing can oppose the official dogma, not even science. In fact, the history of science and religion has shown us that religion, when it's got political power in a society, as it did during the Renaissance, often opressed science brutally. Whether we're talking Giordano Bruno, Galileo, or others, the fact is that when scientific truths are discovered which conflict with religious dogma, religion's response is to deny it, and try to supress or subvert science to silence it from contradicting faith and dogma.

Religions are made of dogmas that constantly overlap with science. The virgin Birth concept, for example, clearly says something about biology. The idea that the Soul enters the body at conception clearly has legal and biological implications. The problem is that these topics have a complete lack of scientific backing to them, and they are actually harmful when enough people who believe in them have the power, for example, to deny funding to medical research on embryonic stem cells, which could save lives and cure diseases.

It's not just science, either, it's history, too. History, though having a slightly different methodology, is nonetheless a methodology, which, like science, is designed to extract truth from fiction, and find the facts in a sea of conjecture. Religions often make historical claims, and often, these claims are directly in opposition to recorded history. Archaeology was once dominated by a pro-Christian bias, and to a degree, certain topics in history still are. But over the last century, many interesting facts concerning the ancient world have been discovered that conflict with long held religious dogmas, and have become accepted fact.

The progression of Pharoahs in Egyptian history is one of the more notable ones. In the Old Testament, the lineage of Pharoahs is listed, and for years, archaeologists associated various dates to various Pharoahs, based on the Bible, because the paradigm was that the Bible was always correct. But more recently, lineages written in the stone of ancient tombs and on buildings revealed a whole bunch of Pharoahs that the Bible skipped over, and we even found the mummies of the those individuals.

Even medicine and public health issues are not safe from Religious dogma. Remember the fury over the first birth control pills? Religious groups, particularly Catholics, protested and continue to this day to try to either outlaw contraceptives, and Evangelical Protestants have had a serious effect on US foreign aid to Africa, effectively preventing condoms from being sent to Africa to prevent AIDS. Sex education in the USA is forbidden in many places from even mentioning anything about contraception, which had led to a lot of patently false misinformation on sex being spread in some schools. One texas school taught kids that kids could get pregnant from oral sex, refering to the mythical infants conceived via filatio as Spit Babies".

So the idea that religion doesn't conflict with science really is not true. It does. It has profound effects on public life, and can even lead to dangerous outcomes. We should not discount the attempts of evangelicals to push creationism on our public schools as futile attempts. We should oppose it with the same determination that African Americans opposed Jim Crowe laws. Religions do not merely infringe on scientific facts, they infringe on historical facts, politics, education, public health, and society in general. We should stop using the notion that science and religion aren't really in conflict, and admit the truth. They clearly are, and the more people there are who accept religious dogma over scientific truth, the more opression, misinformation, and ignorance there will be.

25 comments:

GamingAsshole said...

Good post.

By the way, Christians are going to go on a mass crusade here in California saying homosexuality is unnatural, since he just legalized same-sex marriage.

David W. Irish said...

Let them.

Democracy is not Mob Rule. No state can craft legislation that contradicts the US Constitution. Every time gay marriage come before the courts, the courts have no alternative but to state the obvious -- laws that ban gay marriages essentially set up a different legal system as it pertains to gay people. Just as courts could not uphold laws that forbid interracial marriage, because the constitution already declared that black people were equal to white people, and thus entitled to be treated the same, the laws that attempt to forbid gay marriage also do the same thing -- gay people have all the same rights that straight people do under the constitution.

Nobody will argue against the idea all men and all women are entitled to be married to someone they love. And to deny two men or two women from marrying each other, is to say "sorry, the law is different for YOUR KIND!"

By the way -- back in the 1940's and 1950's states had laws that forbid black people from marrying white people. When it was proposed that this was not fair, and that there shoudl be no law prohibiting black people from marrying white people, the religious conservative apes of the time said "if we allow that, what will be next? Men getting married to horses, or women marrying dogs?

Interestingly, the religious conservative monkeys of the current era use that exact same argument about gay marriage.

TiradeFaction said...

Well hold on Psycho Dave. You say Democracy is not Mob Rule? I love democratic ideals, and they are part of my philosophy of how government should work, but for the sake of devil's advocate, how would you respond to someone who said it was? Because it can easily be mistaken as such. And California has a partial direct democracy system, so if the referendum (that as far as I know is going on the ballots) passes, the constitution will be amended to ban gay marriage.

GamingAsshole said...

Mob rule means mob mentality, which goes against the values of democracy. Democracy is not the majorty rules, its the people rule. That includes minorities, such as gays.

GamingAsshole said...

One could argue that democracy can lead to mob rule, which of course it can, but the values of democracy (especially American democracy) that it is in place to protect all classes and types of people, especially minorities.

David W. Irish said...

We live in a constitutional Republic, where our leaders are chosen by democratic vote, and our laws must confirm to the constitution. Our constitution forbids anyone from voting anything into law which directly violates the Constitution. It is how the founders chose to balance mob-tyrany.

Sure, the state can try to pass a law that bans gay marriage, based on popular opinion, or on a popular vote, but if the law violates the constitution, it cannot be allowed to exist.

This is exactly how the Jim Crow Laws were overturned, and how laws forbidding interracial marriage became a thing of the past. Once the test cases reached the supreme court, it became obvious that the laws were in direct violation of the bill of rights because they set up a separate system of justice for one group of people.

Sure, the mob can riot over this, but who do you think would win out? I think the federal governmetn has the power to enforce the constitution.

TiradeFaction said...

Well yes, but I think you are ignoring the fact such laws like Jim Crow existed for quite a long time, it takes a good while for these type of laws to get overturned, often with a change of popular public opinion also...

And about the federal government overturning a state ban on gay marriage. That has yet to happen, the federal government still is pretty much "let the states decide" (with the support of the mainstream democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama I'll add). After all, a good chunk of states have their constitutions banning gay marriage. It could go either way in the November election in California, since it is a half half thing.

P.S. Especially American democracy? It started out as the few rule over the many, and we have a pretty horribly mismanaged democracy I would say.

GamingAsshole said...

American Democracy now. I don't care if the founding fathers didn't actually live up to what they said America stood for. I'm talking about today. While at the moment, a lot have the mentality, let the states decide, I don't believe it will last long. You mention Jim Crow laws, which were repealed in direct opposition to public opinion, and which can still find plenty of people in those areas which would support such actions. The amount of opinion that was pro Jim Crow laws was essentially the same as it is in certain states against gay marriage, I don't really see how that is going to completely bring it down, especially in California.

TiradeFaction said...

Actually, the popular opinion on the federal level (meaning, people in the north, and west) was that Jim Crow laws were horrible, and needed to be repealed. It will take a consensus like that in those areas for there to be a national lift on state wide bans of Gay marriage.

TiradeFaction said...

It's why Martin Luther King Jr. was so successful, did you think he was able to get things repealed without popular opinion? That was basically his goal, to get public opinion changed to his favor to overturn Jim Crow laws and such.

GamingAsshole said...

>>>Actually, the popular opinion on the federal level (meaning, people in the north, and west) was that Jim Crow laws were horrible

Not necessarily. While opinions against it would be more easier to find in the North, the opinions were they should be kept to not antagonize the South. The North was still racist, they just didn't care enough to institute Jim Crow laws. Obviously, in the South the opinion was overwhelmingly for Jim Crow laws.

>>>and needed to be repealed. It will take a consensus like that in those areas for there to be a national lift on state wide bans of Gay marriage.

Not really, it will take people to realize the constitution can't be split for two different types of people, as Jim Crow laws were repealed for those reasons.

>>>It's why Martin Luther King Jr. was so successful, did you think he was able to get things repealed without popular opinion?

Uh...King Jr. was not that popular when he was alive, him becoming a national icon was after his death. It was his sensationalism and ability to rally certain groups together that made him successful. The FBI spied on him, and the US government distrusted him, as many did, not just in the South. He was considered by many to be a Communist agitator.

>>>That was basically his goal, to get public opinion changed to his favor to overturn Jim Crow laws and such.

Which he did...after he died.

Pocket Nerd said...

Science and religion approach the whole universe with fundamentally different philosophies.

In science, authority means nothing and evidence means everything: It doesn't matter if Einstein, Hawking, and Dawkins all sign a paper swearing the Moon is made of green cheese, because the evidence simply doesn't point that way. Great scientists earn respect for their intellects and achievements, but their convictions never trump empirical reality.

Religion is the opposite: Authority must not be questioned, and evidence must be ignored or handwaved away if it conflicts with authority. If your scripture of choice (or the person who claims the power to interpret it for you) say that the universe is only 6,000 years old, then IT'S ONLY SIX THOUSAND YEARS OLD, period, and who cares if some evil lying scientists claim the evidence means something else?

No wonder religion appeals so much to control freaks and power junkies. And no wonder so many of them today are embracing epistemological nihilism-- the philosophy that evidence ultimately means nothing.

GamingAsshole said...

I've met a few Atheist who also claim to be Nihilist, though I doubt they even know the definition of the term.

TiradeFaction said...

>>>
Not necessarily. While opinions against it would be more easier to find in the North, the opinions were they should be kept to not antagonize the South. The North was still racist, they just didn't care enough to institute Jim Crow laws. Obviously, in the South the opinion was overwhelmingly for Jim Crow laws.<<<

Uh.....opinions on the federal level DID change about it, they began to see how horrible it was for the south to maintain laws that basically indentured black people into poverty. I am not talking about pre civil rights activist opinions, I am talking about the civil rights workers success in persuading people's sympathies.

>>>
Not really, it will take people to realize the constitution can't be split for two different types of people, as Jim Crow laws were repealed for those reasons.<<<

The constitution only changes when a large group of people are able to be able to elect people in the federal government to be more sympathetic to their view. People do not really care about the the technicality of the constitution, they will only care if they actually want pro gay rights, not from some moral that it "can't be split up"

>>>Which he did...after he died.<<<

I could be wrong about his popularity, but my point still stands. The public opinion CHANGED, which is why the change was enacted into the laws. It may have taken his death, but it happened. You can't seriously expect constitutional changes without a large backing of the populace, such as with woman's suffrage, and etc.

GamingAsshole said...

>>>
Uh.....opinions on the federal level DID change about it, they began to see how horrible it was for the south to maintain laws that basically indentured black people into poverty. I am not talking about pre civil rights activist opinions, I am talking about the civil rights workers success in persuading people's sympathies.


Yes, but they didn't change the country, especially in the south, where such laws existed, to have a majority opinion to be against Jim Crow. Gay marriage is not that opposed in California, but it's heavily opposed in the South, much like Jim Crow. Bans on gay marriage has to be shot down in spite of public opinion, just like Jim Crow.

>>>

The constitution only changes when a large group of people are able to be able to elect people in the federal government to be more sympathetic to their view.

The constitution didn't change when Jim Crow laws were shut down. They simply said the constitution doesn't defend them. They simply changed their minds on it.

>>>People do not really care about the the technicality of the constitution, they will only care if they actually want pro gay rights, not from some moral that it "can't be split up"

But the constitution shouldn't change to amend gays, people should realize in its broad language, it defends gays, at least the way we apply it.

>>>The public opinion CHANGED, which is why the change was enacted into the laws.

Well, the laws were shut down after the government realized they were unconstitutional. Jim Crow was being shut down before MLK did his speech, and his actions were a response to the growing trend to shut them down. He didn't get them shut down personally.

>>>It may have taken his death, but it happened. You can't seriously expect constitutional changes without a large backing of the populace, such as with woman's suffrage, and etc.

Yeah, but Jim Crow didn't enact constitutional changes.

TiradeFaction said...

I'm done arguing this, since you don't seem to get the point. The majority opinion OUTSIDE the south changed, which was enough to affect the south (that's why I said on the federal level, after all, the south is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, like any other area of the united states.). And it did cause a landmark legislative change, just like the Jim Crow laws were for the south, the Civil Rights act was for the entire Union.

Plus, I never claimed he did personally, but they were not being "shut down" before him. (unless you mean before he died, I am referring to before he started his work) He was bringing awareness to the public. People only "realize" it is "unconstitutional" to treat a certain segment of the population like shit if they gain sympathy for them. The Civil Disobedience of civil rights workers was integral into the legislative changes that came about in 1964. To deny that and say it was just "The courts changing their minds" is pretty dumb.

GamingAsshole said...

>>>I'm done arguing this, since you don't seem to get the point. The majority opinion OUTSIDE the south changed

Not really, Jim Crow laws were very popular all across the US, they were not implemented nationwide because certain people against them were in power, and they eventually shut them down in the South. It unfortunately wasn't the ebb and flow of public opinion, rather lawyers and politicans who realized it was unfair.

You also claimed such laws changed the constitution, but they didn't, they simply changed opinions on what the constitution says.

>>> Plus, I never claimed he did personally, but they were not being "shut down" before him. (unless you mean before he died, I am referring to before he started his work)

No, they were being shut down in the late 40s, in places that were unaffected and unrelated to him. People like Ceaser Chavez were activist (unpopular also) who helped shut them down by swaying politican and lawyers opinions, not necessarily public opinion.

>>>He was bringing awareness to the public. People only "realize" it is "unconstitutional" to treat a certain segment of the population like shit if they gain sympathy for them.

It wasn't the people, since there was no vote on it (which is good, because popular opinion would have made them stay) but rather well-educated, tolerant people in power.

>>>To deny that and say it was just "The courts changing their minds" is pretty dumb.

But that's what happened. No vote, no election, just the courts well...changing their mind.

TiradeFaction said...

All I'll say is you don't understand politicians (yes, judges who help make legislation ARE politicians also). If they made a ruling that 90% of the people were against, they would not still be in power. They were forced with the changing of time to rule in favor. Plus, uh, Cesar Chavez was about union strikes...in the 70s, and his strikes were very popular, to the point where his grape boycotts were hurting the big businesses he was striking against. In a boycott, if you have very little people with you, it is pointless, you need a large amount to support your cause, that's...how a boycott works. Same with social activism, there are plenty of social activists for various causes in this nation today, but they aren't very popular, hence why they are unsuccessful.

TiradeFaction said...

After all, there are plenty of people who do personal boycotts against Wal-Mart, but the lack of a large amount of people boycotting them means it does very little to no damage to them. Successful boycotts need large numbers with them.

TiradeFaction said...

Plus, you are right I was wrong about the change in the constitution, it was just a change of "perspective".

GamingAsshole said...

>>>After all, there are plenty of people who do personal boycotts against Wal-Mart, but the lack of a large amount of people boycotting them means it does very little to no damage to them. Successful boycotts need large numbers with them.

I've always felt boycotts are overrated. They can work, but most people who advocate boycotts don't really know what they are talking about, and how boycotts are not always the best way to deal a blow against a company. With something like Wal-Mart, it's going to take social activism and exposing the public to their misdeeds so that legislation is pushed that prevents the company from doing these things.

GamingAsshole said...

>>>If they made a ruling that 90% of the people were against, they would not still be in power.

Well, those people were unpopular in the south, you do realize it took a long time after the laws were repealed to actually see the effect? They had to get armed troops to escort black students into schools.

>>>Plus, uh, Cesar Chavez was about union strikes

And desegregation. I guess you've never done research on him. Jim Crow laws were being repealed before King did his I had a dream speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9sar_Ch%C3%A1vez

>>>In a boycott, if you have very little people with you, it is pointless, you need a large amount to support your cause, that's...how a boycott works

It was the strikes, not the boycotts, that delt the blow.

TiradeFaction said...

Wow, you tell me to do research, say he fought against "segregation", then link me to an article that does not support your claim? That reminds me of anti marxist fanboy.....

It only talks about his labor rights activism, if he did do activism against state sponsored "segregation", it isn't in the wikipedia article. His whole civil rights activism was really labor rights, that's not bad, but there doesn't even mention anything with him fighting against segregation, just fair and equal wages.

By the way, the boycott of table grapes did help the UFW strikes. ;-)

GamingAsshole said...

The article links to biographies of him, which mention his stance against segregation. Geesh, I linked to it because it was an all-encompassing article. Holy shit....

But, if you need me to link to them specifically, fine:

http://www.olvera-street.com/html/cesar_e__chavez.html

http://chavez.cde.ca.gov/ModelCurriculum/Teachers/Lessons/Resources/Biographies/Middle_Level_Biography.aspx

http://www.colapublib.org/chavez/chronology.htm

GamingAsshole said...

The boycotts were very minuscule, it was the strikes that were crippling. If all they did was boycott, they'd be laughed at and forced to leave, replaced by people who would buy the products.