Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians

[Ludwik]

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

 

http://csam.montclai.../theology3.html

 

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific "contributions," as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

 

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc. Thank you in advance,

 

 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

 

.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Ludwik

[dragonstar57]

do you mean a coexistence between religious and atheists or are you asking something else?

[jackson33]

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc. Thank you in advance. [/Quote]

 

Ludwik; A very interesting observation, which I totally disagree, although respectfully. How, what or why one group ("this website") and another are not always the same, even where would be scientist are involved. Even here for instance, when heated debate comes up over science vs. theology, it's generally not those involved in the sciences that debate or argue the different viewpoints, I like to say, taking an agnostic viewpoint. Generally those that seemingly argue to the point of appearing historical, do so for other reasons, sometimes political or for some personal reason or cause, reflecting little or no scientific reasoning. If they do get involved, maybe four or five around here, it's when the theologian tries to question current science theory and in most cases if versed in science or educated in a field not compatible (evolution) are simply explaining the different understandings. Said simply, science, the folks involved and those holding to some religious faith, do and always have peacefully coexisted.

 

I don't have time tonight to go further, or it may be off topic, but IMO Religion in itself, was the precursor for Philosophy which led to science, since mankind first formed some sense of reasoning. That is religion itself promoted many areas we now call science.

[mississippichem]

I think they should coexist in the sense that theologians and scientist should not be violent or actively disrespectful toward each other. But when there is an intellectual disagreement then there is just an intellectual disagreement. I would not, however, be one to give credibility to an argument that I thought was unsound in the name of respect or peace.

 

I have no problem with theology as long as it stays "theological" and doesn't attempt to challenge empirical science with philosophical noodling or hand waiving. I do think that two opponents can argue vigorously without being disrespectful though.

Edited January 25, 2011 by mississippichem

[lemur]

I think they should coexist in the sense that theologians and scientist should not be violent or actively disrespectful toward each other. But when there is an intellectual disagreement then there is just an intellectual disagreement. I would not, however, be one to give credibility to an argument that I thought was unsound in the name of respect or peace.

 

I have no problem with theology as long as it stays "theological" and doesn't attempt to challenge empirical science with philosophical noodling or hand waiving. I do think that two opponents can argue vigorously without being disrespectful though.

Good post. Important to insist that peace doesn't translate into false agreement. People need to assert their beliefs and it actually helps to put them in terms of the people you're trying to convert (or just make understand your point of view). I would not try to explain God in spiritual terms to a materialist because they would just question spirituality in terms of materiality. Likewise, I would try to insist on evolution to creationists by insisting that the creation story is proven wrong by fossil records. I would instead try to explain the findings of evolution in terms that acknowledge the breadth of the creation and then try to interpret evolution in terms of divine will. God bless science and how about some critical rigor for theological ideas, just to develop them further?

 

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

I agree with mississippi. The main issue is zealots from either side being disrespectful of the 'opposition' by trying to forcibly push their beliefs onto one another. As was mentioned, disagreements on intellectual matters are just that. Though it is a curiosity for me at least to understand why one would choose to believe in creationism, it is not for me to simply tell someone who did believe in ID, etc. that they are simply wrong and spend hours in a heated debate that will in reality get nowhere except for where we started.

 

Can we coexist peacefully? Of course we can. Will we? On a larger scale, absolutely not. People are stubborn and unfortunately those who cause a lot of the troubles do so because they cannot simply live and let live. Some people just enjoy 'stirring the pot', consequences be damned. Having said that, I also believe that being disrespectful of another's beliefs doesn't necessarily dictate violence or maliciousness. I often feel that the people who go around to people's houses trying to 'sell' God are just as guilty of being contemptuous as those who engage in violent behaviour, since they both aim to achieve a similar goal.

[Marat]

Although your link tries to distinguish religion from science so that mutual peaceful coexistence between the two can be established, the problem with that effort is that religion and science ultimately collide on a final common pathway, which concerns the meaning of human life, the way we should behave, and how we should interact in our societies. Because of that inevitable collision of the implications of the different thought styles of religion and science, it is unavoidable that they continue to war with each other.

 

People who adopt a scientific worldview are essentially positivists: they only admit the existence of measurable pains and pleasures, tangible causes of those states, and concrete solutions to address them. For this reason, they are also ethical and political policy positivists, so their goals in shaping society are to produce a world in which tangible and measurable human pleasures and pains are respectively intensified or diminished by concrete interventions. Other values which may interfere with the pursuit of those goals are rejected since they unnecessarily diminish human happiness by diverting our efforts to extraneous matters. If a religious person asserts, for example, that the whole world has to suffer the agonies of sexual frustration until marriage because some imaginary being is believed to insist that this is the right thing to do for reasons that cannot be explained in positivistic terms, then scientists who insist on positivistic standards of evidence for everything done will be outraged at this unnecessary production of human misery for some value whose bona fides cannot be demonstrated in any rational, measurable way.

 

So the conflict is unavoidable. Even if religious belief did not threaten positivistic values by the contribution of believers to social policy formation, the very existence of believers in society lowers the quality of life of people who adopt a positivistic perspective requiring rigorous proof of everything that is believed and asserted. Their quality of life is lowered because the community of people with whom they discuss and share the problems of life is just cluttering up the rigorous analysis of scientific positivists by flights of imagination and empty enthusiasms. It is like being an adult living in a world populated by kindergarteners.