Re: Is Religion Another Way of Understanding the World?

Toby: You made what I wanted to say clearer. Thank you.

When the book (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876) answers
one of FAQs "Does science disprove religion? ", it says things like
"Science can neither prove nor disprove religion", "...it confuses
the roles of science and religion by attributing explanations to one
that belong in the domain of the other", and "The study of science
need not lessen or compromise faith".

The whole question and answer are as follows, and again it implies
that religion is a legitimate way to understand the world.

"Does science disprove religion?

Science can neither prove nor disprove religion. Scientific advances
have called some religious beliefs into question, such as the ideas
that the Earth was created very recently, that the Sun goes around the
Earth, and that mental illness is due to possession by spirits or
demons. But many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that
currently are not within the domain of science. Thus, it would be
false to assume that all religious beliefs can be challenged by
scientific findings. As science continues to advance, it will produce
more complete and more accurate explanations for natural phenomena,
including a deeper understanding of biological evolution. Both
science and religion are weakened by claims that something not yet
explained scientifically must be attributed to a supernatural deity.
Theologians have pointed out that as scientific knowledge about
phenomena that had been previously attributed to supernatural causes
increases, a "god of the gaps" approach can undermine faith.
Furthermore, it confuses the roles of science and religion by
attributing explanations to one that belong in the domain of the
other. Many scientists have written eloquently about how their
scientific studies have increased their awe and understanding of a
creator (see the "Additional Readings" section). The study of science
need not lessen or compromise faith." (Source: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876).

On Jan 15, 7:08 am, Toby A Inkster <usenet200...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
qquito wrote:
If both science and religion are "ways of understanding the world", why
should religion be excluded in science classrooms?

This begs the question of whether or not religion offers a "way of
understanding the world". Some would argue that it does not -- and even
that it offers the opposite -- a way of ignoring the real world.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Texas lawmaker: Colleges shouldnt discriminate against
    ... evolution negates the need for salvation. ... to be posh) In the terminology of business speak, religion simply has ... There will be conflict between science ... If scientists can legitimately refer to 'the laws of nature,' then you ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Texas lawmaker: Colleges shouldnt discriminate against
    ... to be posh) In the terminology of business speak, religion simply has ... There will be conflict between science ... metaphors and heuristics here, no problem with it. ... If scientists can legitimately refer to 'the laws of nature,' then you ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: NBC VENTING
    ... > belief in 2005 then I will happily condemn religion as superstitious ... Weird Science on the Religious Right ... "Condoms are full of holes" ... scientists at Columbia University showed that by saying appropriate ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Dover decision Redux
    ... endorsement of religion. ... mere re-labeling of creationism, ... position, ID is not science. ... scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Quran and Modern Science
    ... Based upon extracts from the video The Truth. ... RELIGION and SCIENCE have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam ... Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at ...
    (soc.culture.pakistan)