Nor was I, it was just an example.
What I'm talking about is when people on either side, with no clue what they're talking about, claim the other is wrong and stupid. YEC is a religious example. Persinger's "God helmet" is a scientific one. The vast majority of believers accept science, and the vast majority of the scientifically-inclined at least admit there's no proof.
I don't have a problem with the "God helmet" experiment as long as it's kept in context. I think it might point to some interesting phenomena happening in the brain that warrant further study, but it's not the "smoking gun" that some people make it out to be.
All it says is that religious experiences can be generated by non-supernatural means. It doesn't say that they
can't be generated by supernatural means, and obviously if we look back through history, very few if any prophets and mystics have been under the influence of strong magnetic fields. I think it's interesting, but it's not the whole answer to anything.
Which leads to my conclusion: given that the two fields are so easily reconciled, and many embrace both fully... the perceived conflict is unnecessary. It only happens when one side pees on the other's turf. (Which happens with depressing regularity.
)
But it's not that simple. For instance, take Original Sin: presumably, you'd agree that this is definitely "religious" turf, right? Well, the problem is that to substantiate Original Sin, the Catholic Church makes monogenism a tenet of faith: they preach
as a point of unquestionable doctrine that all of humanity descended from exactly one original male-female pair. This is a claim about the origins of humanity that's definitely "scientific" turf; it's an evolutionary biologist's bread and butter.
In scientific terms, monogenism is a complete non-starter. Species just don't evolve that way: speciation happens in groups, not in lone pairs. This doctrine doesn't get that much press because it's less obviously wrong than Young Earth Creationism, but it
is factually wrong.
So... apparently, Original Sin and monogenism are interlinked. What science has to say about monogenism will impact the Church's teachings about Original Sin (which impacts the Atonement, the role of Christ, the necessity of baptism, the plan of salvation, etc., etc.). On this issue - and in theological terms, it's a major issue in the largest denomination of the largest religion on the planet - science and religion are in direct, unavoidable conflict. How do we resolve it? Is science peeing on religion's turf when it implies that Original Sin is fictitious, or is religion peeing on science's turf when it implies that all of the species
homo sapiens descended from one original pair?
I think there are similar problems with just about every religion. All of them have unsubstantiated claims, and IMO, most have claims that do conflict with science when you look at them closely. Take life after death: how many religions claim some version of an afterlife or reincarnation? How is this reconcileable with our knowledge of the human brain? IMO, seeing how every indication we have is that the way we think, feel, and everything that makes us who we are is rooted in the physical, if the idea of minds persisting without brains hasn't been conclusively disproven, it's at least strongly suggested against.
Ah, I was more nuanced than that. I don't believe they never overlap. Hell science originated as a religious pursuit, and I've spoken to you before of how I long for the day when scientific precision and clarity can be applied to matters of faith.
Anyway, what I was trying to say was a reiteration of my stance that they explore different questions. Science is concerned with how things happen. Religion is concerned with larger, vaguer questions like humanity's place in the world, and what SHOULD happen. The (currently
) testable claims of religion are relatively trivial side effects of the real pursuit. To use YEC as an example again, HOW God made the world doesn't really matter to any but the desperate. ETA: Creationism is to faith what Twitter is to science!
I see this distinction as artificial. If a person really, truly believes that there is a real, live god or gods who are active in the world, why wouldn't he expect this to have real, practical ramifications?
Even if religion was only about things like "humanity's place in the world" (which I don't think it is, or ever has been), it's still going to conflict with science, because science has quite a bit to say about how things work in the world, which any question of "place" is going to have to take into account if it's going to have any value.
