SpenniesGod, Science and Religion
January 10th 2007 07:48
The Sydney Morning Herald recently ran an article on popular science writer Richard Dawkins.
[link]
Yet there was a lack of opinion pieces in the paper on the topic that's been circulating widely in the Australian media of late. Just how much attention should be given to the science versus religion debate? Is it blasphemous to imagine a world where science and rationality replace religious fundamentalism and discrimination?
Not too long ago the Prime Minister agreed to spend $90 million on chaplains for schools.
Defending the PM’s move was federal Minister for Health Tony Abbott, a committed Christian, who claimed that religious faith is important in a child’s education and any school who shares this view will be entitled to government assistance.
John Howard himself claimed this wasn’t attempt to force-feed religion to children, but rather to teach them ‘values’. But exactly whose values will they be learning?
Critics of the National School Chaplaincy Program say that it will undoubtedly fuel religious disputes in schools, and put further pressure on the community’s already faltering tolerance levels. The question of what kind of chaplain to appoint, Catholic or Protestant, Christian or Muslim, Jewish or non-Jewish will lead to religious discrimination amongst groups in the community and teach children a lesson they could have done without.
Wouldn’t it be wiser to teach them how to think, instead of what to think?
Throughout his books, Dawkins has tried to assess religion’s place in society and its increasing role as the catalyst for conflict and harm. An atheist through and through, his claim is simple: do away with religion altogether. Controversial maybe, logical even more so.
Some of the world’s leading science figures gathered in California about two months ago for a symposium to answer the very question of whether science should do away with religion. After a day of presentation and talks, including a speech by Dawkins himself, the answer was found to be an overwhelming yes. And it’s no surprise.
The raging debate in the US over Intelligent Design has divided the nation and brought the issue of science versus religion at the forefront of politics, where, like in Australia, the argument is forged over education and values. What gets critics of ID really going however is the movement’s claim that evidence is not altogether necessary to believe in the existence of a ‘designer’. This was too much for one physics graduate from Oregon, Bobby Henderson, who decided to protest the teaching of ID in public schools by coming up with his own ‘intelligent designer’: the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a symbol that’s since become an icon on the internet. Of course, Henderson’s Flying Spaghetti Monster is meant as a parody of intelligent design, a satirical attack on its being taught in public schools – where’s the evidence to prove that life on Earth wasn’t designed by a creator made of spaghetti and meatballs?
Now is probably a good time to think about philosopher Bertrand Russel's famous 'teapot' analogy, which suggested that if there were a teapot in en elliptical orbit around the sun, too small to be detected by human telescopes, it would still be absurd to believe in its existence just because it cannot be disproved. If however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed by ancient books, taught as the truth, instilled in the minds of children in school, then hesitation to believe its existence would become a mark of disbelief and heresy. The teapot analogy simply points to the fact that the burden of proof does not lie upon the sceptic to disprove the unfalsifiable claims of religion.
So there is a pretty strong argument against religion, especially its influence upon young minds. It’s something to worry about when half of the American population bare eagerly anticipating the end of the world. There is no doubt that people at this point in time need religion, but perhaps the answer is a slow integration into a frame of mind that values rationality, intelligence and compassion without the discrimination and prejudice that comes from religion. As Galileo once said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."
[link]
Yet there was a lack of opinion pieces in the paper on the topic that's been circulating widely in the Australian media of late. Just how much attention should be given to the science versus religion debate? Is it blasphemous to imagine a world where science and rationality replace religious fundamentalism and discrimination?
Not too long ago the Prime Minister agreed to spend $90 million on chaplains for schools.
John Howard himself claimed this wasn’t attempt to force-feed religion to children, but rather to teach them ‘values’. But exactly whose values will they be learning?
Critics of the National School Chaplaincy Program say that it will undoubtedly fuel religious disputes in schools, and put further pressure on the community’s already faltering tolerance levels. The question of what kind of chaplain to appoint, Catholic or Protestant, Christian or Muslim, Jewish or non-Jewish will lead to religious discrimination amongst groups in the community and teach children a lesson they could have done without.
Wouldn’t it be wiser to teach them how to think, instead of what to think?
Throughout his books, Dawkins has tried to assess religion’s place in society and its increasing role as the catalyst for conflict and harm. An atheist through and through, his claim is simple: do away with religion altogether. Controversial maybe, logical even more so.
The raging debate in the US over Intelligent Design has divided the nation and brought the issue of science versus religion at the forefront of politics, where, like in Australia, the argument is forged over education and values. What gets critics of ID really going however is the movement’s claim that evidence is not altogether necessary to believe in the existence of a ‘designer’. This was too much for one physics graduate from Oregon, Bobby Henderson, who decided to protest the teaching of ID in public schools by coming up with his own ‘intelligent designer’: the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a symbol that’s since become an icon on the internet. Of course, Henderson’s Flying Spaghetti Monster is meant as a parody of intelligent design, a satirical attack on its being taught in public schools – where’s the evidence to prove that life on Earth wasn’t designed by a creator made of spaghetti and meatballs?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Now is probably a good time to think about philosopher Bertrand Russel's famous 'teapot' analogy, which suggested that if there were a teapot in en elliptical orbit around the sun, too small to be detected by human telescopes, it would still be absurd to believe in its existence just because it cannot be disproved. If however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed by ancient books, taught as the truth, instilled in the minds of children in school, then hesitation to believe its existence would become a mark of disbelief and heresy. The teapot analogy simply points to the fact that the burden of proof does not lie upon the sceptic to disprove the unfalsifiable claims of religion.
So there is a pretty strong argument against religion, especially its influence upon young minds. It’s something to worry about when half of the American population bare eagerly anticipating the end of the world. There is no doubt that people at this point in time need religion, but perhaps the answer is a slow integration into a frame of mind that values rationality, intelligence and compassion without the discrimination and prejudice that comes from religion. As Galileo once said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."
| 86 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
