Why is the science vs religion debate so rigid?
Samuel Butler said: “God was satified with his own work, and that was fatal”. Science is not rigid: It is its undeniable task and indeed its responsibility to investigate, research and test hypotheses (in the process making mistakes but learning all the while) and in so doing continously build, strengthen and adapt the human knowledge base. Its only rigidity lies in this. Religion is not designed for this and rests on ‘belief’ in mysticism such as the virgin birth, resurrection (in the Christian belief system) etc. none of which are able to stand up in the fierce light of investigation. When you investigate the basis of these belief systems (all religions) one is struck by its inconsistencies and untruths, hence the strident almost panicky insistence by religious leaders ‘to believe’; they have no choice and this is where religion is rigid. In the final analysis, religion and science are mutually exclusive…the so-called middle ground is a contradiction in terms.
Related Questions
- Like all of us ive made mistakes but this lead to negative experiences with my Church Leader that I thought should have been faith promoting (they defiantly weren that). I feel ive lost my faith in Christ, what can I do to get it back?
- What is the basic philosophy for Confucianism?
- Is religion really the opiate for the people?
