Angels & Demons: Science vs. Religion: Enough already!!

[ProfessorPlum]

For fun, I'm starting to listen to Dan Brown's book Angels and Demons on my way to and from work. I've read his other stuff, so I'm familiar with his clumsy stereotyped characters and the other limits of his writing.

Two things that struck me as laughable from just the first 10 short chapters of the book: First, that CERN is incredibly sexy (not that particle physics isn't cool). And second, that Science and Religion are at each other's throats. Isn't time we put this tired old story to rest?

Science and Religion just don't have that much to say about the other's area of influence, ie, the nature of the universe versus the meaning of the universe. And though I can't speak to the number of clergy who are interested in science, the number of religious/spiritual whack jobs that are in high positions in the FDA, drug companies, and science departments in university that I've met implies to me that many if not most scientists are spiritual/religious, probably almost to the degree of the general population.

Only where where the two fields cross, in areas like technology, ethics, and politics/policy, do you find real issues of contention. I find that most people are unhappy with religion for political, not scientific, reasons.

Lay people, especially storytellers (I'm including the mainstream media here), seem intent on keeping this false controversy boiling, by always portraying scientists as contemptuous of religion, but that has not been my experience.

Any other views?

[havocmom]

1. Am guessing you haven't been by Mt Graham in AZ in the past 20 years

Cuz if you had, you would have noticed a bit of religion and science chatting it up on the top of that sky-island. The Vatican has build a rather expensive observatory on that mountain. Probably not looking for Santos.

[ProfessorPlum]

3. I don't think seriously religious people eschew science at all

And they would be fools to give up on the wonders of most technology. The number of faith-healers who wouldn't give their kids antibiotics for an ear infection, for example, has got to be small.

[jandrok]

2. Funny you mention Angels & Demons....

I just started reading it a few nights ago. I wanted some background on the main character before I tackled Da Vinci Code.

I'd agree with your point about most scientists not being contemptuous of religion. I myself know several people who are involved in professional science who also have deeply held spiritual beliefs.

On the other hand, I'd say that there is a concerted effort amongst several fundamentalist religious organizations to treat science as a competing religion, as a threat to the "one truth" that these groups constantly peddle. Carl Sagan's excellent book "The Demon-Haunted World" explores this trend in detail. You see it in efforts to push "creation science" and "intelligent design" in schools. You see it in efforts to push competing theories to plate tectonics and the fossil record. There is outright contempt for science amongst these groups, and that is a very dangerous trend.

Science in it's purest forms is an attempt to understand the mechanics of the universe. Religion in it's purest forms is an attemt to understand our place in the universe. The two can most certainly co-exist and compliment each other.

[ProfessorPlum]

4. One of my favorites

I love Demon Haunted World. I read the part about nightmares to my daughter just a few nights ago, and it helped her get back to sleep.

As someone who is primarily a scientist, I would agree that my perception is that most of the guff comes from religion trying to knock down science, rather than the other way around, but perhaps I'm too partisan to see it the other way?

[Stunster]

5. The Da Vinci Crock

You might want to read this review from Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/12/29/da_vinci_code/index_np.html

The Da Vinci crock
A fascinating conspiracy about Jesus transformed the cheesy thriller, "The Da Vinci Code," into a phenomenal bestseller. Too bad it comes from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," a masterpiece of bogus history.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Laura Miller

Dec. 29, 2004 |

"The Da Vinci Code" has characters so thin they're practically transparent, ludicrous dialogue, and prose that's 100 percent cliché. Even by conventional thriller standards, the book isn't particularly good; the plot is simply one long chase sequence, and the "good guy who turns out to be evil" is obviously a ringer from the moment he's introduced. Dan Brown is no Robert Ludlum, so why has his thriller so outdistanced the work of his betters?

More, lots more...

[applegrove]

8. Davinci Code is simply silly writing. It appeals to us because it points

out that monotheism seems to have done away with the worship of women (fertility goddess are universal in pre-monotheistic cultures). And rightly so. You cannot ignore the power of 1/2 your adults (well actually more than half the adults) and not expect there to be a need left unmet.

I wish someone else had come up with the idea and pursued it in a less cheesy fashion. Eco did essentially the same thing with the Catholic Church in the Name of the Rose but instead of the 'female' archtype being hidden - it was 'human intellect' that was suppressed by the Catholic Church ore the years.

So is there a book out there that is exactly half way in between these two in terms of writing? That would be perfect for me.

[seasat]

6. I am both scientist and a Christian

I think the problem is that some people require a physical confirmation of their faith. They either have personal doubts or lack depth. Many scientists that I know that are Atheists (IMHO) are partly the result of the numerous perposterous challenges of long standing scientific theories by fundamentalists. I went through years of agnosticism because a Falwellian preacher demonized science that I loved so much. It took a philosophy course at a public university that required me to examine my views on the meaning of life before I became a Deist and then a Christian.

Science and religion (and/or philosophy) are two sides of the same coin. Science addresses questions such as, "How did we get here?" Religion (and/or philosophy) addresses questions like, "What is the meaning of life?" You cannot test the meaning of life with the scientific method and you cannot test the evolution of the species with religion. You can try but you are basically using a hammer to saw a board.

[applegrove]

7. I am guessing you live in a cabin in the woods so far away from

the closest radio/TV tower that the broadcasts you receive are from the 1990s.

In our present condition (Bush White House) Science & Religion are at each other's throats all day long. If you are not in some far off wilderness in a galaxy far, far way, I suggest you turn your dial off clearchannel, Faux News or Rush's show.

Every day the Bush administration tries to diseminate bad information as good. Neocons hate the Englightenment. They do not want the public to be informed.

[ChairOne]

9. Of course there's a war - it started properly when Newton did Principia...

... tho there were of course skirmishes before that (Copernicus, Galileo, and so forth). From the skirmishes, one could tell that war was a foregone conclusion, the only question was when.

But the war has raged hugely since Newton (thru Hume, Kant, and a bunch of others), typically under the rubric "the science wars". Darwin of course escalated the war beyond any hope eof reconciliation.

There have been a variety of offshoots of the war, for example (1) the politicization of science by bush, and the pushback from the Union of Concerned Scientists, (2) The Sokal Hoax, and (3) the rampant anti-intellectualism among the bible-thumping portion of the population (leading to India, China, and Japan thinking of America as irrelevant in the world).

"Prayer has no place in school, just like facts have no place within organized religion" - a Simpson's version of the science wars (Principal Skinner).

The war is on, and America is losing. Badly.