Tuesday, 22 February 2011
When it's said there's no conflict between science and religion by way of citing religious scientists, does that mean that citing instances where scientists reject science on the basis of their religion as conflict? Surely the latter case is more compelling because the relationship in the former is a passive one, while the latter is a causal one. It seems the only real reason to prefer one view over the other is a strategic one, to get those who would be sympathetic to such a view on board. Even if when arguing on religious terms, it's hard to see why to prefer one view over the other. Those who argue for a conflict often times refer to their holy books as justification.