Quote:
On 2002-05-05 02:47, beskeptical wrote:
Silas, I like your examples but they show that religion is often harmful.
|
Oops; that was actually quite opposite of what I was trying to say!
Quote:
|
I believe very strongly that we need to teach our children how to distinguish a false claim from one supported by evidence. It is not facts they need to learn, it's how to recognize and interpret evidence.
|
Yes, agreement! We need to teach children "how" to think, not "what" to think.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, religion is a source of myths and misconceptions for many people. And, while it may be comforting to some to have their beliefs, religion has been the basis for many wars, much predjudice, and much hate.
|
But this was why I wanted to try to change the terms of the debate. It isn't really "science" vs. "religion." Religion is not the enemy.
Dogma is the enemy. Rules of procedure that prohibit change are unsuitable to our advanced knowledge. We can no longer accept "If it was good enough for my grandfather, it's good enough for me."
Empiricism is our friend. It's simply a process of trial and error (guided, of course, by scientific insights.) Empiricism is science's closest ally. If you want to know something...you go and get your hands dirty and eventually you'll find out.
Religion (and philosophy) is one of the better ways to deal with those things that cannot be known. Is the cosmos "personal" or "impersonal?" Is love an universal value? Must we die forever when we die? Do we have a purpose here?
Science can't answer those, and won't try.
There is a lovely quip, which I have heard attributed to one of the participants in the Scopes Monkey Trial: Religion is interested in the Rock of Ages, while Science is interested in the Age of Rocks.
Dogma is the enemy when it says, "Yo, Science, you're wrong!" And, upon a few occasions, science is the enemy when it says, "Yo, Religion, you're wrong!"
Silas