Quote:
Originally Posted by atomiczombie
I did a lot of work in teasing apart the relation of religious and scientific discourse when I was a philosophy student back in the 90's. Briefly, I think you hit the nail dead center, AJ, when you said that it is not the job of scientific language to address issues of religious faith. That isn't its function, yes. There is a lot of confusing of one type of concept for another when talk of an intersection occurs.
I am going to come back at some point hopefully soon (it is pride weekend so there's a lot going on) when I can posit my thoughts more elaborately. I also have some book recommendations to make that really do a great job expounding on this topic.
There are lots of great posts in this thread and I am enjoying reading what you all have to say.  |
Okay, before I really have to get into my workday one more thing:
Ironically, when I am drawing these demarcation lines I am doing my best to both respect AND protect religion. I know the power of the scientific method and I know it's limitations (both imposed from within and from without). The problem I see, for religion, is when it tries to insert itself into scientific discussions. I'm not talking about religious *scientists*, I'm talking about, for example, creationism or New Age interpretations of quantum mechanics.
The minute someone says "my <insert divine being here> created the Universe and all things within it and this explanation supersedes any explanation from biology" then I think it is fair to then evaluate that statement on the scientific merits just like we would any *other* scientific statement. It is not enough to just say "this theory is wrong". That gets you nowhere in the physical sciences. You have to also be able to say "this is WHY it is wrong and here is why this alternative theory better explains the data". This is where sectarians of various stripes get themselves stuck in a morass. In order to justify why the religious explanation is a better explanation, that particular bit of dogma has to go through the meat-grinder of scientific questioning. To take just one example (against staying in biology since that is where I am most comfortable).
In sexually reproducing mammals, the gender ratio is slightly favoring males (e.g. slightly more males are born than females). This is true even for species that have a 'winner take all' or 'winner take most' breeding system. For instance elephant seals have a winner take most system. That means that a bull has near exclusive breeding rights in his colony. He will defend those breeding rights, sometimes risking life and limb. Other males will attempt to best the bull so that they can breed or try to get a little seal sumthin-sumthin on the side taking quite a bit of risk either way. What that means is that the VAST majority of male elephant seals will never breed. Isn't that kind of wasteful? Why would an intelligent entity keep the sex ratio close to 50/50 when most males aren't going to breed?
Now, from a gene's-eye point of view it makes perfect sense to maintain that sex ratio. Why? Because nature doesn't care about 'wasted' genes. Sure, if you are a male elephant seal you may not breed but if you *do* breed boy will your genes spread so from that point of view being a male elephant seal has the potential for a fantastic genetic payoff--if only you can become the bull.
Do religious sectarians really want us asking questions like "why does your deity waste so many male genes" or "why does your deity prefer digger wasps over caterpillars"? I think most likely they would prefer we *not* ask those questions but the moment it is stated that the particular story that religion tells to explain why there are things like digger wasps or caterpillars they open their beliefs to just that kind of questioning.
Cheers
Aj