Robert Trivers on religion and science
Trivers takes on religious pretense.
By Robert Trivers on Monday, February 16th, 2009 - 113 words.
What They Said:
“It’s important for people of faith to go on record as saying we have no conflict with science. Otherwise, people may get an impression that religious people are dumb, ignorant and hostile to science.”
Rev. James Rhodenhiser, rector of St. Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church in Ann Arbor, as his congregation took part in Evolution Weeekend on the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth.
What They Mean:
“It is important for religious people to say that “we” have no conflict with science — not because we are interesting in exploring this issue — but because we need to keep up a public pretense that we are not completely out of touch with reality.”
Robert Trivers
(+5 rating, 11 votes)
Loading ...4 Comments
Leave a Reply
Articles by this author
-
Robert Trivers on religion and science
Trivers takes on religious pretense.
-
Robert Trivers on the Gaza attack
Trivers on Israeli newspaper columnist.
-
Robert Trivers on the militarization of the U.S.
Trivers on the proposed 20,000 domestic troop response unit.
-
Robert Trivers on Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz
Robert Trivers takes on Elie Wiesel
-
Robert Trivers on Heinz-Christian Strache
Robert Trivers takes on the far-right Austrian politician
Depends on the religion
How can you say this? Have you been to a bookstore lately? There are dozens of books published every year by people of nearly every faith that "deal with this issue".
Educated religious people, at any rate, are quite fine with methodological materialism but don't see any reason why philosophical materialism must be crammed down everyone's throats.
It is true that there are groups in the US that see certain social and moral problems as a result of, or at least heavily influenced by, the theory of evolution (and other theories they don't like). They think they need to destroy the roots if they are going to destroy the fruits, by somehow proving it false.
Many of the rest of us, however, understand that there is indeed no reason whatsoever to oppose science in and of itself, and that the orientation of these other groups is deeply flawed and misguided.
We do however oppose the drastic statements made by natural scientists trying their hand at philosophy and social theorizing, which are usually as condescending as they are unfounded. Then, when we don't accept these philosophical musings as the only possible implications of the empirical data they have discovered, we are accused of being "anti-science".
If every scientist would engrave the following words of Albert Einstein in a plaque and place it on the wall in their office, much of this conflict would vanish overnight:
"Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals…
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society."
From "Why Socialism?" originally published May 1949 in the Monthly Review. It can be read here:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
Sorry, but scientific information has refuted the thoughts of these 'personalities with lofty ethical ideals' throughout history and will continue to do so. Some day, science will reveal and explain the selfishness of hose personalities with lofty ethical ideals, we're not so far from that day anymore, I think. Dream on in your self-created framework of selfish thoughts, you religious non-realists.
I have not so well English but thought I would hello to you and that you have a nice thing going on with this website