Freeman Dyson, religion and science don’t have to clash

It’s interesting to read something like this after the black and white oversimplified polemics of the likes of Dawkins… he prefers that everyone and everything have absolute positions – often they don’t… especially when it comes to this subject.

Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect…Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute.

Interestingly, he applies the same logic to the hysterical absolutism of the global warming debate.

One reason there is such a clash between science and religion is because people think ideas like evolution will make all the difference between completely abandoning faith in religion or not and in many cases they are right. So because of this some religions want to try to defend a nearly literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story at all costs and atheists want to try to force people to accept the most popular scientific theories instead.

Personally, I think atheism/agnosticism is a particularly strong threat to religions like traditional Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and hard-core fundamentalists mostly because these groups feature a combination of inflexible hard-line doctrines that can be very difficult to believe in the face of contradictory evidence and a relatively high cost in terms of all the strict rules, time, and money required for full fellowship and acceptance in the group.

Many Christians that are more laid-back can easily just apply the old “Pascal’s Wager” response to atheism and say that there’s really not that much of a downside to believing even if they are wrong. This is why I think the LDS Church should lighten up somewhat because I don’t believe that the same old authoritarian style that has worked alright so far is going to compete very well with atheism and other churches now that the internet has popularized anti-Mormon propaganda. Even the History Channel or National Geographic can easily undermine your faith if you are committed to believe in the strict literal interpretation of almost everything in the Bible, Book of Mormon, etc.

This is why I think the LDS Church should lighten up somewhat because I don’t believe that the same old authoritarian style that has worked alright so far is going to compete very well with atheism and other churches now that the internet has popularized anti-Mormon propaganda.

DA…would you agree the church has “lightened up” quite a bit over the decades? I would submit it has…but not to compete, but to meet the needs of the changing landscape, regardless of what others are doing.

They have lightened up on some things like some of the old racial ideas and you don’t really see them call evolution a heresy like Bruce R. McConkie used to do. However, with other potential deal-breakers like tithing and alcohol they haven’t really lightened up at all. Also, the Community of Christ/RLDS president came right out and said that the Book of Mormon “falls outside the traditional standards of historical documentation” but Jeffrey R. Holland recently said that any explanation other than the one given by the LDS Church is “frankly pathetic.”

One potential problem with this kind of hard-line position is that the Book of Mormon doesn’t simply deal with matters of faith; it makes some fairly specific historical claims that open it up to increased scrutiny. Personally, I don’t think we should put quite so much emphasis on the idea that every member should just believe this story almost as an expected requirement. I don’t have a problem if they want to tell the story, I just don’t see why we need to act like anyone that doesn’t believe it must have something wrong with them and doesn’t belong in the club.

Related – John Polkinghorne. He has a similar background, as an Englishman with both a scientific and religious background. Heard him speak and got to talk to him many years ago, very pleasant man.

The wikipedia articles on him are a bit highbrow (for that website!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

Check out the quote on Bach here –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploring_Reality

In 1. Reality Polkinghorne explains “how natural the task of exploring reality is for someone whose intellectual formation has been in the sciences”(p xi) and asserts his belief in Critical realism against Postmodernism.

2. The Causal Nexus of the World suggests that “scientifically our knowledge is still pretty patchy, excellent within certain well-defined domains but often unable to make satisfactory connections between different domains. The problematic of the relationship of Quantum physics to Classical physics provides an instructive example” and also that “matters of causality … are not finally settled by science alone. Ultimate conclusions have to rest on the foundation of a metaphysical decision.”(p xii)

In 3. Human Nature he notes that Charles Kingsley and Frederick Temple welcomed Charles Darwin’s insights, which also implied a level of continuity between humans and other animals. However he notes that humans abilities in language, science and rationality are very different from those of animals.[2]. He says “the fact that we share 98.4% of our DNA with chimpanzees shows the fallacy of genetic reductionism, rather than proving that we are only apes who are slightly different. After all I share 99.9% of my DNA with J. S. Bach, but that fact carries no implication of a close correspondence between our musical abilities”(p45). He suggests that “while natural selection has been an important factor in the development of life on Earth, it is by no means obvious that it is the only type of process involved” and that “the attempt to force classical Darwinian thinking into the role of an explanatory principle of almost universal scope has proved singularly unconvincing as it seeks to inflate an assembly of half-truths into a theory of everything”[3]. He believes that Evolutionary epistemology is also based on a half-truth. Being able to make sense of everyday experience is a vital asset, yet when Newton discovered universal gravity, something happened that went far beyond anything needed for survival and that rational feats like proving Fermat’s Last Theorem go far beyond anything susceptible to Darwinian explanation.[4]

Until they lighten up on the temple requirements everything else to me seems pointless. To be a good TBM you must attend the temple. To attend the temple you must live by a strict set of requirements or lie. So we can do more mainstream things from a marketing standpoint but the real control is administered through the temple.

Okay. I think that is true. We certainly have created a caste system within the church. Those who are “worthy” to attend the temple, and those who “ARE NOT worthy” to attend the temple. Is that a bad thing?

I think that MANY people, more so everyday, have decided that if they are going to be relegated to “second class” citizens within the church, they would just as well not have anything to do with it. Seriously, if one KNOWS they will not be getting a temple recommend anytime soon because of the “strict set of requirements” how long do they stick around? And how do we expect them to do all the other stuff like church callings etc. Some may say they need this system to weed out the “wheat from the tares.” I disagree. This kind of mentality is NOT good for the individuals, and, IMO, not good for organized religion.

I started a new thread on this idea, as not to hijack this one. Please post your “strict temple requirement” response here. http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1620” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1620

We talked about Elder Holland’s talk in a separate thread, and that simply isn’t what he actually said.

Anybody recall the name of this thread and which section it is in?

Okay, thanks. I will check it out.

Likewise, some fundamentalists will insist that Bible stories like the global flood, Tower of Babel, 6-day creation, etc. are a historical fact no matter how much evidence there is against these ideas.

It’s not just the Christian right who are literalist fundamentalists… atheist skeptics can be too. With the emphasis on the literalist.