Comments on: Why the Religion and Science Debate Continues?

By: olaf

olaf — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:58:25 +0000

I look forward to reading your complete review of this book. However, based on Thompson’s introduction, the list of contributors, and your selected quote from Morris I will hazard a prediction. The creationists, many of whom are serious scientists, will not be engaged as if they have something substantive to say. Their premises are judged to be absurd.Thus, they are relegated to the category “fundamentalist” and dispensed with after a few sneers. I myself enjoy thinking and believe I owe any serious thinker a sympathetic hearing. Didn’t someone once say there’s more to the world than is contained in your philosophy (or something like that).

By: Christopher Benson

Christopher Benson — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:10:12 +0000

Collin: You’ve said it well but I would add that teachers need to be re-educated not only about the proper vocation of science but also about the proper vocation of religion. Also, there needs to be an understanding about their relationship to each other. Unlike Stephen Jay Gould, I don’t believe in “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA). Instead, I believe in “partially overlapping magisteria” (POMA), a view advocated by Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, and Alister McGrath.

By: Collin Brendemuehl

Collin Brendemuehl — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:59:01 +0000

Let’s be certain that we clarify that “science” is not about certain presuppositions, but about working with the data. If we leave the questions as simple as Morris then we lose because we have nothing left but faith in opposition to information. We have created our own false dilemma.
The implication of Thompson is precise: The teachers need to be re-educated. They do not need to be educated in “creationism” but in the simple logic of science. They need to separate science (assumptions) from naturalism (presupposition).

By: Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:44:38 +0000

What do you mean by “perceived to be based on entirely different principles,” Christopher? Certainly science and religion are based on different source materials. Is there something wrong with that?

As to “relentlessly leading us in different (potentially opposing) cultural directions,” that is credible only if one takes a naive view of science and religion (as Dawkins certainly does; I haven’t read enough Morris to assess that quote in proper context). If that was your point, then I certainly agree.