Religion and Science (not Religion v. Science)

Have you ever had a discussion that seems to go in circles and goes no where, and you you seem to be taking past one-an-other? I have and tried to understand why so many discussions produce little more than noise movement of air. I believe the problem involves two basic ways to approach any question. Neither is inherently better or worse, but each should be used in a different contexts. I name these 1) a religious approach, and 2) and a scientific approach. Lately I have been confronted by or have participated in discussions involving science, involving religion, and involving both.

The religious approach is not involved solely with questions of diety, but is broader, involving one's basic assumptions that are inherently true. Everyone has such assumptions and are necessary as we can't evaluate anew everything we confront. In addition, there are qualities of right, the don't necessarily involve and logic. We must have some of these assumptions if we are to live a moral life. An aspect of the religious approach is identification of “Good” and “Evil”. Some things are without discussion are good, and some things are just plain evil. Among the many religious and proved assumptions that I consider valid in my life are,

• There is a God.
• Murder is Evil.
• Our role in life is to serve, to help and try to make things better for other people.
• One should love one's spouse above almost everything else.
• You can't love everyone, but you can at least be civil.
• Proactive or preemptory punishment or retaliation should be avoided.

The scientific approach involves questioning the validity of assumptions that are basic to an issue. Since we all are ignorant of most things, the only way we can learn is question and seek a better understanding of things around us by questioning our assumptions. All of the assumptions at the base of science and technology have been questioned at some time, and the result is the lifestyle that those in the first world lead. Scientific questions usually are “true” or “not true”, based upon the best knowledge we can find. A finding of “True” may not be the final answer, but may upon further investigation become “Mostly True”, or qualified by other assumptions. Newton's laws physics are “true” most of the time, but is unture under circumstances where relativity or quantum effects are important. Medicine would have gone nowhere is someone (probably an ancient Greek) questioned the assumption that sickness was a divine punishment. The approach involve a constant questioning and evaluation.

The problem is where an assumption that should be questioned scietifically is taken as inherent religious dogma. It isn't necessarily a theological question that can be taken religiously, as any subject can be approached in a religious manner. Some questions, because of our ignorance, sometimes have to be assumed without question, but they should be subject to change as we become informed.

My religious assumptions are few, but very broad. I have a problem in discussions when I am trying advance my thinking about in issue in a scientific way, and where the other person is approaching the same question religiously. The result is the religious side doesn't discuss but proselytizes his view. He will not willing retreat from his view, and when ask to respond to a question involving an unpleasant or inconsistent fact, will often skirt the issue, change the direction of discussion, or reply with a statement that doesn't make sense. He also sees a certain viewpoint as “evil”. From a religious standpoint, identification of something as evil is an efficient way to dispose of it without having to think much about it. If evil it can be assumed it is inherently untrue, and all issuing therefrom is untrue.

Below are examples of discussed issues where I have taken a more scientific approach.

1. The creation depicted in the bible is the actual way the earth was created.

Making this an unalterable inherent truth creates all sorts of questions, such as “If the Lord is truthful, why would he create an earth that overwhelmingly appears to be evolved?” Silly responses such as “Parts of other planets were used to assemble the earth.” or “The devil has changed things to lead us astray,” or “God created it this way to test us?” or some made-up Creation Science create many more basic questions and contradictions rather than providing any real solution.

2. Gold has an intrinsic value. There is no reason to make this as a religious assumption. It avoids many realities about the economy and history. Value is placed on anything by the culture and is in the minds of people. Many say this because of the long tradition in European cultures using gold as currency, but this has not been universal and it doesn't take much knowledge of the history of the gold standard to see that it is untrue. I will admit that under certain limited circumstances a gold standard might even be recommended. But a strict gold standard now in the United States would ruin the economy. Gold is not “God's metal.”

3. Mental illness is caused by possession by devils.

I don't need to say much about this. I have family members who have mental problems (and may have my own). I consider this assertion ridiculous. I have not seen any behavior so extreme that I can even come close to attributing it to possession. This belief is only useful as an excuse to exclude people (and the evil within them) and not deal with a person's problem.

4. Vaccination of children causes autism.

The original study that alleged this association has been shown to be a fraud and the data was made up. Attempts to reproduce its findings have failed. This belief is particularly destructive. I don't have the data, but based upon reading from both sides I don't think anyone can find a proven case of harm caused by a vaccine, but there have been babies (who are too young to be vaccinated) who have become sick by contact to an unvaccinated person. Similar beliefs in unproven medical treatments are equally silly, but maybe not as harmful. These include most of chiropractic medicine, homeopathy, and herbal and “nature” healing.

5. Global warming is (is not) caused by human activity. There are adherents on both side that are equally silly. Every time a glacier melts, a hurricane strikes, this season is warmer than last season, or Arctic ice decreases is not in it self a “proof” of global warming. My current view is that at least some of what we see is due to human activity. (I won't now go into all my reasons. As I read more data, my view has slid in one direction or the other.) I have a problem with the religious proselytizer of their view. An oft heard is, “GW theory is a fraud originating from government funded labs.” The government has always been a convenient devil, particularly for conspiracy theorists. It allows one to dismiss any GW conclusions and excuses a really hard look at the data. The real issue here is more political - what we ought to do now - which is a different issue altogether from the cause. The issue of true on not-trueness of GW has become a proxy for what is really an issue of political power, and money.

6. No bicycle should ever have a motor on it, only human power should be allowed.

This seems silly, but this is a reaction I have gotten from some people when they confront my electric-assist bicycle. My vehicle rides like a bicycle, but there is hub motor on the rear wheel that assists when pedaling. I tell these purists that they don't have to call it a bicycle, but something else. I also explain that some trips are too long or hilly to make a regular bicycle practical, and that it is much better than the only other choice - a car. I suppose that if you can't be a pure bicyclist, you must use a car. None of them have ever tried an electric assist bike, “I would rather be struck dead.” Now, that is a real statement of this evil.

7. Lastly, most political issues are mixed, and shouldn't be purely religious or scientific. This is what makes them so difficult. The constitution is not scripture, although it was a great advance of moral principles. I reject the premise that seems common now that the purpose of a political party is to “annihilate” (or rendered insignificant) the other side. The partisan fighting in our national and local governments lends to much power to the extremists, and this usually leads to bigger problems. In the middle east the policy of the major actors is to prevail through annihilation, whether it is Israel v. Palestine, Sunni v. Shia, Muslim Brotherhood v. Egyptian Army, ISIS v. everybody else, and on and on. That is why it is all such a mess, everyone is trying to kill some else (and the US has often makes it worse by taking sides). The glory of our constitution is that no side is allowed to take full power and prevail in this way. It is called a balance of powers, not only between the parts of government, but all power that can potentially reign unchecked. We should celebrate disagreement, and opposing views.