Religion and Science – cruel Gods

 War

There is a war between Science and religion. For example, nowadays, we can see the symptoms of this war in the hot debate between pure materialistic evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins, and fundamentalist creationists, as exemplified by the Texas based “Institute for CreationResearch”, or “Creation Ministries International” in Australia. While arguments exist that this war is not necessary, nevertheless, in reality, this clash can be seen when observing objectively the real situation in the world around us.

Those who argue that that the war between Science and religion is not really inherent to either of them or their relationship, that it is artificially induced, stress the fact that Science and religion deal with different domains of human experience, that they can (and should) complement each other in a constructive way.

Clerks studying astronomy and geometry. Wikimedia Commons

In the above paragraphs I used capital letter for Science, but not for religion. Why? 

Because even if scientists often do not agree with each other, history teaches us that after some time a unified paradigm appears, accepted by most scientists – so called “mainstream science”. This is not the case with religion. 

There are different religions sometimes hostile one to another. Religions, some more than others, tend to be conservative, and, after thousands of years, no unified “world religion”, accepted by most, seems to have emerged. This is not to say that different religions were not, and are not working hard (even with fire and sword) to impose their belief systems and rituals on others. And when I say “religions”, I mean “organized religions”. It is important to be able to distinguish between a religiosity as a certain attitude of the human mind, and organized religions, with their dogmas, hierarchy and rituals.

There is room for constructive interface between Science and religion, provided both sides get rid of their rigidity and become more open-minded. 

For some people Science is, whether they believe it or not, their

religion. For other people their religion is all good and Science

 is all evil. 

But these are extremes. What is in the middle? Work. And not for a glory.

From Ayn Rand “The Fountainhead”

 ...

Wynand asked:

“Howard, have you ever been in love?”

Roark turned to look straight at him and answer quietly:

“I still am.”

“But when you walk through a building, what you feel is greater than that?”

“Much greater, Gail.”

"I was thinking of people who say that happiness is impossible on earth. Look how hard they all try to find some joy in life. Look how they struggle for it. Why should any living creature exist in pain? By what conceivable right can anyone demand that a human being exist for anything but his own joy? Every one of them wants it. Every part of him wants it. But they never find it. I wonder why. They whine and say they don't understand the meaning of life. There's a particular kind of people that I despise. Those who seek some sort of a higher purpose or 'universal goal,' who don't know what to live for, who moan that they must 'find themselves.' You hear it all around us. That seems to be the official bromide of our century. Every book you open. Every drooling self-confession. It seems to be the noble thing to confess. I'd think it would be the most shameful one.”

“Look, Gail.” Roark got up, reached out, tore a thick branch off a tree, held it in both hands, one fist closed at each end; then, his wrists and knuckles tensed against the resistance, he bent the branch slowly into an arc. “Now I can make what I want of it: a bow, a spear, a cane, a railing. That's the meaning of life.”

“Your strength?”

“Your work.” 

He tossed the branch aside. “The material the earth offers you and what you make of it...”

Coming next: BertrandRussell and “A Way of Feeling”

P.S.1. Today (13-03-23) I agreed to serve as reviewer of a paper by two Iranian physicists, submitted to a journal. The paper deals with "Generalized Uncertainty Principle". As I never stumbled across such an idea, I wrote to one of the authors asking for an explanation of the MEANING of such a principle, that is different than the famous Robertson–Schrödinger inequality While waitin for the answer I started to read this paper.