Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken G
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.
|
Yes, I agree in general with your view here. Yet, science has changed some religion in major ways. The idea that the Earth is not the center of the universe was a very difficult step for religion. Science revealed the truth, and reluctantly, it was adopted by many religions. In this case, non-Geocentricity was found to be non-contradictory, afterall; improved interpretation was possible due to the scant scriptural references. [Of course, there are always a few who hold to Geocentricity, but I am only using mainstream for both religion and science (though I am an expert at neither).]
Quote:
|
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.
|
Another great analogy; it's directly proportional to the number of nuts one is given to make the peanut butter mess.
Yet, I think I am not getting your viewpoint. I agree that areas where events are strictly taken on faith, and science has no direct impact upon, can have modes of thinking that are not in conflict. But some religious views are in direct opposition to the view science claims. In this case, a religion that will not review its interpretation finds that science is making it look silly, or worse - false. We see the result - conflict.
Perhaps you are suggesting a more allegorical viewpoint for religion. That might explain where I am loosing you.