Fringe politics: Religion vs science

realitykeeper

The apparent disparity between religion and science goes back thousands of years. Even the ancient Greek philosophers were polarized between the stoics and the skeptics.

The stoics were perhaps comparable to modern day right wingers with the stiff upper lip and openness to matters of faith. The skeptics relied on logical argument and required proof as verification of reality.

Religion requires faith. Science requires proof. If God could be proven to exist, the requirement for faith would no longer be necessary. Lets say for the sake of argument that God does exist: Why would God not provide proof of his existence to every living person on a regular basis?

One explanation may be that if people knew that God existed, they would do what God commanded out of a combination of fear and fortune seeking. In other words, their good behavior would be motivated solely by the prospect of personal gain, as opposed to doing what is right for the sake of doing what is right. If that is the case, God would value love and righteous intent over good deeds with insincere motives.

Most people, both religious and non religious are probably agnostic in that they accept that proof of God`s existence is impossible (unless God decides to provide the proof).

This brings me to the quest for the so called "God particle" which is being sought by the physicists at the particle accelerator in Cern, Switzerland. Particles of a certain mass have been detected by the particle accelerator but scientists believe there must be other particles of greater mass as yet undetected because without those particles, the contemporary understanding of how the universe came to exist is not supported by the data. In other words, there is not enough (known) dark matter to have made the big bang possible.

That is not to say the seven days of creation are an accurate description of the moment of creation either. The Catholic Church itself considers the Book of Genesis to be an old testament parable, i.e. a story with a moral to it (God made the world) and not a literal account of events on that first "day".

I believe scientists will probably discover other particles which will support their theories. The "God particle" is however a misnomer in my opinion in that its existence would support the physicist`s explanation for the creation of the universe thereby dispensing with the need for God in explaining the universe, at least from the atheist point of view. That said, proof of God`s existence is not necessary from the perspective of the faithful. Indeed, the absence of evidence is very important from the perspective of the faithful as evidence would only get in the way of faith.

Having said all that, I think humanity has its priorities wrong. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and a lot of knowledge can be very dangerous. The research being carried out at CERN has the potential of delivering enormous benefits but even so, anti matter is such an unknown entity that caution would be wise. Speaking of wisdom, I suspect its pursuit would yield a greater outcome than all the knowledge of the age combined.

That is not to say, wisdom and science cannot co-exist in harmony. The co-operation between Russia and the US on the international space station following the end of the Cold war is one example. Or, as Olaf would say: "Love can thaw a frozen heart."

Peregrinus

Why is this posted in the Political Theory forum? I see the word "politics" has been stuck into the subject title, but it seems to have nothing to do with the content of the post.

I think you'll get more response to this if you post it in one of the "Religion & Spirituality" forums, or possibly in "Philosophy".

UnknownEntity

Religion and politics are two different things.

Peregrinus

As are science and politics. The so-called "conflict between religion and science" may be an interesting topic for discussion, but it has little to do with political theory.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

As are science and politics. The so-called "conflict between religion and science" may be an interesting topic for discussion, but it has little to do with political theory.

Agreed.