Tässä erinomainen artiklkeli sukonnon ja tieteen suhteesta ja Uus Ateismista:
BYU biology professor Steven Peck has something thoughtful to say in his latest blog post:
...[T]heology is under unprecedented attack from a cluster of philosophers and scientists, called the ‘New Atheists.’ While this group is hardly representative of scientists in general, they are popular, vocal, evangelical and influential. They are theologically naive, but their misrepresentations of religion and theology are gaining traction. What seems odd is that in responding to these atheists there seems to be a tendency for believers to buy into their most harmful (from my perspective) argument. That is, that evolutionary biology and religion are incompatible and that one must be chosen above the other. They both accept the thesis that there can be no compromise and that this is a fight to death between one or the other. This is unfortunate because this false dichotomy, widely accepted by both camps, is the real danger. As I have said elsewhere in [the Salt Lake Tribune] speaking about the creationist movement Intelligent Design, “[My] complaint about Intelligent Design is it sets religion and science against each other. It puts forward a false dichotomy in students’ minds that suggests that evolution and faith are incompatible. It makes people of religious faith suspicious of science. When students genuinely think that science and religion are incompatible, one of two things typically happens. One is they embrace science and since it is incompatible to religion, religion is abandoned. The other is that they maintain their faith but remain suspicious of science and cast doubt upon its methods and findings, inclining themselves to superstition and pseudoscience. I have to wonder if the reason science education in the United States is falling behind other countries is because misinformed people of faith have been dissing science to the point that many students are choosing other paths. Faith and science need not be enemies. I embrace both fully and without reservation. My religious convictions are part of who I am. My science and faith reciprocate and inform one another. They are part of the way I understand my place in the universe. Intelligent Design does nothing to promote the search for understanding and cooperation between these two vital ways of knowing. It is a darkening of the mind on every level, both religiously and scientifically.”
BYU biology professor Steven Peck has something thoughtful to say in his latest blog post:
...[T]heology is under unprecedented attack from a cluster of philosophers and scientists, called the ‘New Atheists.’ While this group is hardly representative of scientists in general, they are popular, vocal, evangelical and influential. They are theologically naive, but their misrepresentations of religion and theology are gaining traction. What seems odd is that in responding to these atheists there seems to be a tendency for believers to buy into their most harmful (from my perspective) argument. That is, that evolutionary biology and religion are incompatible and that one must be chosen above the other. They both accept the thesis that there can be no compromise and that this is a fight to death between one or the other. This is unfortunate because this false dichotomy, widely accepted by both camps, is the real danger. As I have said elsewhere in [the Salt Lake Tribune] speaking about the creationist movement Intelligent Design, “[My] complaint about Intelligent Design is it sets religion and science against each other. It puts forward a false dichotomy in students’ minds that suggests that evolution and faith are incompatible. It makes people of religious faith suspicious of science. When students genuinely think that science and religion are incompatible, one of two things typically happens. One is they embrace science and since it is incompatible to religion, religion is abandoned. The other is that they maintain their faith but remain suspicious of science and cast doubt upon its methods and findings, inclining themselves to superstition and pseudoscience. I have to wonder if the reason science education in the United States is falling behind other countries is because misinformed people of faith have been dissing science to the point that many students are choosing other paths. Faith and science need not be enemies. I embrace both fully and without reservation. My religious convictions are part of who I am. My science and faith reciprocate and inform one another. They are part of the way I understand my place in the universe. Intelligent Design does nothing to promote the search for understanding and cooperation between these two vital ways of knowing. It is a darkening of the mind on every level, both religiously and scientifically.”
Vastaukset 6
Vanhimmat
En ole oikein koskaan ymmärtänyt miksi uskonnolla ja tieteellä pitäisi olla ristiriitaa, koska uskonto on uskomista ja tiede on tietämistä. Uskoa saa mitä haluaa ja tietoa voi hankkia. Jos haluaa uskoa, että Jumala on luonut ihmisen, niin sitä ei mitenkään haittaa se tieto, että ihminen on syntynyt evoluution tuloksena - voihan Jumala olla se perusta, joka on käynnistänyt evoluution tai jopa se, joka on luonut maailmankaikkeuden. Mutta kuten sanoin, kyse on vaan siitä mihin haluaa uskoa. Jos ei halua uskoa, niin tiede kertoo paljon, mutta kaikenkattavaa tietoa alkuasetelmista ei ole olemassa.
Tieto ja usko eivät ole toistensa vastakohtia. Tieto on varmempaa, mutta yleensä suhteellista. Uskonnollisella uskolla lähestytään sitä, mitä tiedolla ei saavuteta. Uskoen voi saada tietoa, jota ei saa tavanomaisin keinoin eli ihmislähtöisesti.
Mormonin kirjan fiktiohistorillisia tapahtumia on turha lähestyä tavanomaisin keinoin ihmislähtöisesti. Kuten mainitsit uskonnollisella uskolla saavutetaan tietoa jota muuten ei saada.
Uskolla voidaan paikata kuvitelmilla ne aukot, joihin tieto ei yllä.
Kuvitelmat ovat luuloa, mutta eivät uskoa. Silti mielikuvitus ei ole kiellettyä vaan kuuluu luovuuteen. Uskoon ei kuvitelmia tule sotkea.
Sinä täytät tietosi aukot Smithin kuvitelmilla ja opeilla. Ne ovat luuloa.