The Conflict Model: designed to create conflict

[Trurl]

I was watching a lecture series on science and religion. The instructor mentioned the Conflict Model. In this model religion and science are in conflict. Evolution vs Creationism. Observation vs. History.

 

But the instructor said these polar opposites were once part of the same reasoning. Before the 19th Century, science and religion were often related.

 

I don’t care what you believe. I am a person and have my own views. I just think people are being influenced a bad way. Instead of respecting each other and different views, we are trying to impose our views on others. Not that that is always wrong, but look at the government. Democrats can agree with Republicans. People can’t agree on masks and so forth.

 

What would be the advantage of so much hostile division? I don’t know. I hypothesis it is a way to justify wars.

 

In my speculation it is like: kill and displace millions then leave a mess and say it was too expensive. In this speculation, it is not clear what the true mission is.

 

I will leave with a thought on a video game. In Metal Gear Solid 4 you spend 15 hours fighting Liquid (the name of the opposing enemy). And it turns out that Liquid actually saved the world. So you are the bad guy.

 

I know some of you won’t know the classic game reference, but if you do it is a good topic of discussion.

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, Trurl said:

What would be the advantage of so much hostile division? I don’t know. I hypothesis it is a way to justify wars.

It is simple, really. If you want your group to rally around your cause, the easiest approach is to create a foe. 

[exchemist]

6 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I was watching a lecture series on science and religion. The instructor mentioned the Conflict Model. In this model religion and science are in conflict. Evolution vs Creationism. Observation vs. History.

 

But the instructor said these polar opposites were once part of the same reasoning. Before the 19th Century, science and religion were often related.

 

I don’t care what you believe. I am a person and have my own views. I just think people are being influenced a bad way. Instead of respecting each other and different views, we are trying to impose our views on others. Not that that is always wrong, but look at the government. Democrats can agree with Republicans. People can’t agree on masks and so forth.

 

What would be the advantage of so much hostile division? I don’t know. I hypothesis it is a way to justify wars.

 

In my speculation it is like: kill and displace millions then leave a mess and say it was too expensive. In this speculation, it is not clear what the true mission is.

 

I will leave with a thought on a video game. In Metal Gear Solid 4 you spend 15 hours fighting Liquid (the name of the opposing enemy). And it turns out that Liquid actually saved the world. So you are the bad guy.

 

I know some of you won’t know the classic game reference, but if you do it is a good topic of discussion.

I agree that a "conflict model" between science and religion seems fairly ridiculous, given the number of scientifically literate people with religious faith, and given a knowledge of what many religions actually teach (as opposed what people like Dawkins might have you believe). There is however a conflict between science and a particularly noisy strand of American Bible Belt Protestantism*, which can lead to a misleading impression, especially in the USA.

There is a detailed discussion of all this here:  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/#ModeInteBetwScieReli. which gives a more balanced view. 

 

* It seems to me there is a certain irony here, in that there is a case for arguing the Reformation originally gave quite an impetus to the development of modern science, only for some of the products of that Reformation to repudiate science today!

 

 

[zapatos]

People who are winning tend to be magnanimous. People who are losing tend toward cheating and dirty tricks. People want to win and will escalate their tactics as their position weakens.

[swansont]

49 minutes ago, Trurl said:

But the instructor said these polar opposites were once part of the same reasoning. Before the 19th Century, science and religion were often related.

But they weren't really related.

 

 

45 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is simple, really. If you want your group to rally around your cause, the easiest approach is to create a foe. 

Right. Tribalism. The initiation into one group is the rejection of the other.