\"Bleached Faith\" (Religion)

by dhw, Thursday, October 08, 2009, 18:57 (5523 days ago) @ xeno6696

Me: As for science and religion not studying the same things, I agree, but in my view religion should not run counter to the findings of science ... and that is what gives the design theory its important role in religion: it helps to make what you call the "two entities" compatible.-Matt: You...sort of missed my mark. Science and religion aren't compatible but complimentary. They both describe parts of the human experience; religion, that esoteric and immeasurable part of ourselves that defies outside attempts to understand it, and the outer, exoteric, material world by science. At the center, lies man.-Actually, you...sort of missed my mark too, but we're probably still aiming in more or less the same direction. Compatible and complementary are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Imagine the headline: "World Renowned Scientists say God is a Delusion. Evolution is the Creator of Life". The Archbishop of Canterbury would look pretty stupid if he stood up and said: "Material explanations aren't that important. We only deal with the esoteric and immeasurable part of ourselves that defies outside attempts to understand it." Without their god or gods, religions lose their foundation and their authority. And so if religion appears to be in conflict with science, I'd say it needs to answer science with science (unless you wish to confine it to the intellectually blinkered). Therein lies the importance of the design theory. It provides increasingly necessary support for what underlies the immaterial, non-scientific experiences you describe. As I've said before, science should ignore religion, but religion should not ignore science.-Earlier you argue that "religions are about how to deal with human suffering", and "how we should act towards each other as a people; God(s) is/are typically only the central glue to this picture." Well, I'm afraid that without the glue, the religious picture falls apart. All you need is humanism. But I agree completely that a UI ... in the sense of some vague, impersonal thingummy ... gets us nowhere and does nothing for us. However, while you have ... in my view quite rightly ... been attacking Intelligent Design (as opposed to Design) for its religious agenda, it's the agenda (as opposed to the science) of the Discovery Institute that actually answers your criticism as well as that made by your "Bleached Faith" author: i.e. that ID "removes religion from the realm of faith and values". If ID is used as a gateway to or defence of Christianity, it helps to provide or bolster the faith and values that might otherwise be lost to the abiogenists. Of course, you're acting the "devil's advocate" again, but the advocacy is getting just a little confusing!