(5) Science vs. Theology

Mark Walters markwalt at erols.com
Thu Mar 12 20:09:20 EST 1998



mystic wrote:

> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > Per-Anders Freyhult <per.anders.freyhult at r.lrf.se> wrote..
> > >
> > >
> > > Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> > > > Religion is not compatible with science at all-
> > > > religion is the antithesis of science.
> > > >
> > > > All true scientists are atheists.
> > > > All truly intelligent people are atheists.
> > > > Religion is something found only
> > > > in ignorant children. The logical process
> > > > of reason must exclude mythological
> > > > beliefs.
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> > > Althuogh I my self is probably beast designated as an agnostic I see
> > no
> > > reason that relegion and science are incombatible. Rather I see them
> > as
> > > paralell principles, religion dealing with those things that can not
> > be
> > > described in purely physical terms but are non the less important to
> > > human such as the afterlife, the origin of all things( what scientist
> > > can tell you what caused the Big Bang) and such things.
> > > Also these lines "All truly intelligent people are atheists. Religion
> > is
> > > something found only in ignorant childern." are an insult to every
> > > religious individual on this planet.
> > >
> > > Johan Freyhult
> > >
> > My opinion of religion is quite low. I do not
> > regard anyone who is so weak-minded to
> > actually believe in such nonsense as intelligent.
> > Would you regard an adult who actually believes
> > in Santa Claus to be intelligent? My opinion
> > may be taken as an insult by religious people,
> > but my intent is merely to guide the fools back to
> > the path of reason and science and away from
> > the land of fairytales.
> >
> > Goldstein
>
> Nonetheless, there are still things in this world that are quite real,
> even prosaic, that are not measurable, quantifiable, nor explainable
> in terms of pure rationale.  Love.  Hate.  Awe.  Even trying to explain
> these in terms of chemical impulses in the brain is not plausible,
> because no one is certain as to whether or not the measurable evidences
> of emotions are a cause -- or an effect.  I'm as much a scientist as I
> am a historian or a poet -- and I know a blind spot in the abilities
> of science when I see it.  Admitting this is no more un-intelligent than
> is irrationally claiming that science can answer all questions -- even
> those that have not yet been asked of it.
>
> Appleman

Mr. Goldstein's strongly worded articles would seem to indicate that he is
rather closed-minded with regards to other people's belief systems.

It should be noted that the scientific method is, in a way, a belief system
in itself.  It could be said that scientists follow a strict orthodoxy
influencing the way they think and behave, and participate in rather
elaborate rituals in the persuit of their goals (by this I'm referring to
publishing, peer review, getting advanced degrees, etc.).  Is this not
religion?  How is a scientist all that different from a Hassidic Rabbi or the
Dali Lama?

Regarding "fairy tales":  It seems that every year I hear in the news that
some idea once thought to be on the lunatic fringe is now a scientific fact.
The scientific community resists changes and unorthodox thinking as
passionately as the Holy See in Rome.

For example:  Dinosaurs were once "known" to be lumbering, slow, cold-blooded
reptiles, and it was common knowledge that Christopher Columbus was the first
European in the new world.  Of course, these "facts" have now been replaced
by new ones.

The point being today's Fairy Tales are tomorrow's facts.  And vice versa.

It strikes me as unwise to disregard any theory or belief, unless that theory
or belief has been thoroughly examined.







More information about the Plant-ed mailing list