Has Science Replaced Religion?
Mar 23, 2004Has science replaced religion? Can one be religious and maintain a scientific viewpoint? Does belief in evolution undermine morality or belief in God, or vice versa?
信心会蒙蔽理智吗?理性是否模糊了信仰?或者也许他们的主题不同。信仰可能涉及我们生活的一个领域,而理性和科学则涉及另一个领域。信仰可以让我们看到意义、价值和上帝,而理性可以看到其他一切,不管那可能是什么。或者信仰和理性从根本上是相互交织的。信仰是没有理性的吗?忠诚是非理性的吗?科学和理性缺乏信仰吗?John and Ken welcome Nancey Murphy, author of是我的神经元让我这么做的吗?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will,to explore the meaning of faith and the place of faith and reason in religion, scientific practice, and our knowledge of ourselves and the world around us.
Science and religion—often conflicting—but can there be reconciliation between the two concepts? Ken and John kick off the show by highlighting the tension between scientific reason and religious faith. The debate has been currently raging with such works as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, in which he argues that a religious upbringing is akin to child abuse. On the other hand, certain sects of Christianity deny the veracity of evolutionary theory.
John points out that although they appear to be at odds, science and religion are in fact more closely linked than they first appear. Many scientists owe their faith in an intelligible universe to religion, because scientific inquiry can be thought of as uncovering God’s blueprint of the universe. Another strategy for reconciliation involves separating science and religion into opposite spheres—science tells us how the world works and religion gives the world meaning.
Guest Nancey Murphy argues that the two do in fact sometimes conflict—but this conflict does not necessarily work to the detriment of either. For example, modern science has cast doubt upon the traditional Christian dualist notion that the body and soul are two distinct entities. In this case, Murphy contends that what has been interpreted as a religious and scientific conflict is actually due to a conflict of world views as later Christians backed away from dualist readings of the New Testament as better translations became available.
The show then brings up the larger conflict between believers and non-believers, highlighting the intellectual impasse that hinders dialogue between these two groups. Non-believers frequently characterize religious faith as irrational at best and self-deceptive at worst. Is there a “rational” way to believe? When pressed by Ken, Nancey points out that her religious faith comes from personal experience, which he argues is of little evidential value. Nancey concedes what Ken dubs a “recipe for misunderstanding” between these two groups, as they often do not share a framework for discussion. The show concludes with a call for dialogue between believers and non-believers, as well as an urge from Ken that the humanities too should take up the drive for filling out the rationally-discovered facts with meaning and purpose.