Something I would like to point out, regarding the whole God vs science-debate, is that I'm not exactly taking sides in it. Rather; I think both sides are wrong. More precisely; I think both sides are taking their competence out of the context where it's useful. I have already made clear how Richard Dawkins falls short in my eyes. But equally so, it's a question that should be directed towards all "fundamentalists" (a word I use as commonly used, although I could go into detail about its origin and meanings).
For instance, if we study science in school; exactly where and when does it help us to change the curriculum so that we have a creationist version of science onboard? I posed the question to Richard Dawkins; why kill religion, when he is offering no substitute (see the post "Richard, Richard, Richard...")? Equally; how have creationists been able to help study and understand the human genome project, how have creationist perspectives had an impact on scientific cures for cancer, and so forth?
I think one key question here is competence. Are we changing x for y, even though y doesn't have the competence of x? Dawkins wants to make it look like religion is Windows XP and science is Windows 7, in other words: the replacement. Equally, creationists are sticking to their guns saying there's nothing wrong with "XP", and it needs no replacing. I think both these perspectives are mistaken. Also, when Dawkins wants to make it look like faith and science equals theism and atheism and must be at each others throat. Funnily enough, he doesn't care to let more moderates elaborate on how they see the connection. In his Darwin series, for instance, he cuts the archbishop of Canterbury short. Hardly a man you can ignore in an instance like this. He also completely ignores the fact that the Pope already in the 1960ies made the official statement to the world that there is no conflict between what the catholic church says and what Darwinism says. If I were to ask what christian person's opinion would be hard to ignore policies on belief and shaping or influencing faith all over the world. One good answer would definitely be the pope.
Dawkins' problem in this killing-religion-mission of his, is that he doesn't know very much about religion. Many important thinkers, especially political ones, have struggled over how politics and religion should coexist or what kind of religion is acceptable or compatible with politics etc. All too many times, however, the tendency has been to select a too narrow perspective on what religion is to be able to tacle the interesting and important question of religion and politics' position towards each other.
Equally, something that different parts of the church has done in all times, is to be too sceptical about the competence of sciences - both of nature, social sciences and humanities. There are innumerous examples, and it's just pointless to mention them as more people tend to know about them than about the holes in Dawkin's theories. And in that respect, they also help to fuel each other's fires: Early sociology for instance was dead certain that by the beginning of the 21st century, religion would lead marginal existence - a mere curiosity that most people didn't think much of. Not exactly what the global religious landscape looks like today. But surely, one of the reasons was probably that the church tried to rule out that any of the new sciences could actually have an impact or help better the world; a projection that can also easily be falsified.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar