Quote:
|
Originally Posted by George
Scientific evidence should, and does, directly influence religion, IMO. Religion must at least be plausible. If science reveals that a religious viewpoint must be false, then a portion of the religion is false (at least a false interpretation). Therefore, if religion is to be true, it must show science to be false or their interpretation must be revised. Either way, science can create a "disturbance in the force" for a religion, especially for religions which give specific details that are open to scientific review. [We agree, I think, that religion has no direct effect on pure science.]
|
You are of course welcome to define religion in any way you like, that's the beauty of it. The standard view of the world's major religions is that they have changed little in the last thousand years, while scientific knowledge has increased a thousandfold. Any sense to which "religion was there first" when it comes to this knowledge is difficult, if not impossible, to establish scientifically. Personally, I think it makes more sense to just say that they are different modes of thought, with different objectives and different methods, and above all, different ways of establishing what is "true". They can coexist, like peanut butter on bread, but attempts to comingle them in a physical way results in a gooey mess.