In the 18th and especially in the 19th centuries, science believed that it had discovered all the laws of the Universe, matter and nature, thereby rendering untenable everything that the Church had hitherto taught. Interview with French historian and philosopher Marcel Gaucher.
– At the beginning of the 17th century, Galilean science was born, and this immediately raised serious religious problems... How did this confrontation between science and religion proceed during the Enlightenment?
– Educators are much more politicians than scientists. In the 18th century, it was not so much about advancing science as a counterweight to religion, but about finding an independent foundation for the future political order. Yes, the enlighteners turned science into a symbol of the power of the human mind. But this is not the main problem for them. Only at the very end of the 19th century did the conflict between the man of science and the priests acquire a frontal character.
– What happens then? Why does coexistence between them become impossible?
– 1848 becomes a turning point. Over the course of ten years, science makes a series of major breakthroughs. Thermodynamics was discovered in 1847. In 1859, Darwin's Origin of Species was published: evolutionary theory appeared. At this point, the idea arises that a materialistic explanation of nature can completely replace religion. The ambition of science at that time was to propose a universal theory of natural phenomena. Give a complete, unified and exhaustive explanation of the secrets of nature. If in the times of Descartes and Leibniz physics still turned to metaphysics for help, then in the 19th century science claims to expel metaphysics.
– Can we say that from now on science establishes a monopoly on explaining the world?
– The situation looks exactly like this for at least half a century. Imagine what a shock the mere theory of the evolution of species produced! In the time of Galileo, people did not even dare to ask the question of the origin of man. Darwin presented the exact opposite of the biblical account of the creation of the world. Evolutionary theory is the antipode of the theory of divine creation. Science is taking another important step. She truly believes that she is able to discover the higher laws of the functioning of the Universe. One of the most amazing followers of this idea was the German Eckel, the inventor of the word “ecology”, who created the religion of Science. To the extent that people have unraveled the mysteries of the Universe, we are able to derive morality from science, to scientifically formulate the rules of human behavior based on the organization of the Cosmos. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, his Church of Science would attract many followers in Germany.
– Did Auguste Comte try to do the same thing in France?
– There are significant differences between them. The religion of Auguste Comte is not a religion of Science, but of Humanity. We rather owe the theoretical understanding of the achievements of the second half of the 19th century to Herbert Spencer, an author who is also forgotten by many today. His philosophy, extremely popular in its day, was called “synthetic philosophy” precisely because it covered everything from the origin of matter and stars to sociology. This was a unique moment in the history of science.
– Yes, but with all the power of the science of that time, is it alone responsible for the dying of the idea of God? And how did these ideas, intended for the elite, gradually affect the religious beliefs of the people?
– You are right, the idea of God has been called into question not only by science. Emancipation from religion was also born out of the idea of human rights, which strongly challenged the rights of God. Power is no longer given from above: it stems from the legitimacy that belongs to individuals. This emancipation was also helped by history - the idea that people themselves create their own world. They do not obey the transcendental law: they work, they produce, they build a civilization - the creation of their hands. You don't need God for this. And then, let’s not forget that through the spread of schools, industrialization and medicine, science “descends” into people’s everyday lives. The Republic glorifies scientists. Pasteur, Marcelin Berthelot. In 1878, Claude Bernard even received a state funeral. This hegemony continues until the 1980s, when the scientific model begins to crack. Then there is talk about a crisis in science...
– So, science of the 19th century never managed to commit its crime against God?
– There is no need to talk about the death of God, he cannot die, he is immortal! At least in people's heads. As for the crisis of science, it still accompanies us in our world today. We no longer expect science to have the last word on everything in the world. Science does not prove either the existence or absence of God, this is simply not its sphere.
– Today, the power of science coexists with a great desire for everything that in one way or another concerns the area of the sacred... How do you explain this?
– The hegemony of science has become excessive and has begun to cause alarm. Science was very attractive when used in the fight against priests. She's scary today. Science is no longer a liberator, as it was in the days of “gloomy obscurantism.” She suppresses. Science is the only intellectual power. All other types of power are just its pitiful imitation. In this atmosphere of mistrust, many are tempted to resort to occult, metaphysical and religious explanations for things. What has completely died in Europe is sociological Christianity. But religious Christianity still glimmers.
Aude LANCELIN, Marie LEMONIER
Interview with French historian and philosopher Marcel Gaucher.
At the beginning of the 17th century, Galilean science was born, and this immediately raised serious religious problems... How did this confrontation between science and religion proceed during the Enlightenment?
– Educators are much more politicians than scientists. In the 18th century, it was not so much about advancing science as a counterweight to religion, but about finding an independent foundation for the future political order. Yes, the enlighteners turned science into a symbol of the power of the human mind. But this is not the main problem for them. Only at the very end of the 19th century did the conflict between the man of science and the priests acquire a frontal character.
What happens then? Why does coexistence between them become impossible?
– 1848 becomes a turning point. Over the course of ten years, science makes a series of major breakthroughs. Thermodynamics was discovered in 1847. In 1859, Darwin's Origin of Species was published: evolutionary theory appeared. At this point, the idea arises that a materialistic explanation of nature can completely replace religion. The ambition of science at that time was to propose a universal theory of natural phenomena. Give a complete, unified and exhaustive explanation of the secrets of nature. If in the times of Descartes and Leibniz physics still turned to metaphysics for help, then in the 19th century science claims to expel metaphysics.
Can we say that from this moment on, science establishes a monopoly on explaining the world?
– The situation looks exactly like this for at least half a century. Imagine what a shock the mere theory of the evolution of species produced! In the time of Galileo, people did not even dare to ask the question of the origin of man. Darwin presented the exact opposite of the biblical account of the creation of the world. Evolutionary theory is the antipode of the theory of divine creation. Science is taking another important step. She truly believes that she is able to discover the higher laws of the functioning of the Universe. One of the most amazing followers of this idea was the German Eckel, the inventor of the word “ecology”, who created the religion of Science. To the extent that people have unraveled the mysteries of the Universe, we are able to derive morality from science, to scientifically formulate the rules of human behavior based on the organization of the Cosmos. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, his Church of Science would attract many followers in Germany.
Did Auguste Comte in France try to do the same?
– There are significant differences between them. The religion of Auguste Comte is not a religion of Science, but of Humanity. We rather owe the theoretical understanding of the achievements of the second half of the 19th century to Herbert Spencer, an author who is also forgotten by many today. His philosophy, extremely popular in its day, was called “synthetic philosophy” precisely because it covered everything from the origin of matter and stars to sociology. This was a unique moment in the history of science.
Yes, but with all the power of the science of that time, is it alone responsible for the dying of the idea of God? And how did these ideas, intended for the elite, gradually affect the religious beliefs of the people?
– You are right, the idea of God has been called into question not only by science. Emancipation from religion was also born out of the idea of human rights, which strongly challenged the rights of God. Power is no longer given from above: it stems from the legitimacy that belongs to individuals. This emancipation was also helped by history - the idea that people themselves create their own world. They do not obey the transcendental law: they work, they produce, they build a civilization - the creation of their hands. You don't need God for this. And then, let’s not forget that through the spread of schools, industrialization and medicine, science “descends” into people’s everyday lives. The Republic glorifies scientists. Pasteur, Marcelin Berthelot. In 1878, Claude Bernard even received a state funeral. This hegemony continues until the 1980s, when the scientific model begins to crack. Then there is talk about a crisis in science...
Does this mean that nineteenth-century science never managed to commit its crime against God?
– There is no need to talk about the death of God, he cannot die, he is immortal! At least in people's heads. As for the crisis of science, it still accompanies us in our world today. We no longer expect science to have the last word on everything in the world. Science does not prove either the existence or absence of God, this is simply not its sphere.
Today, the power of science coexists with a great desire for everything that in one way or another concerns the area of the sacred... How do you explain this?
– The hegemony of science has become excessive and has begun to cause alarm. Science was very attractive when used in the fight against priests. She's scary today. Science is no longer a liberator, as it was in the days of “gloomy obscurantism.” She suppresses.
Aude Lancelin, Marie Lemonnier
In the 18th and especially in the 19th centuries, science believed that it had discovered all the laws of the Universe, matter and nature, thereby rendering untenable everything that the Church had hitherto taught. Interview with French historian and philosopher Marcel Gaucher. - At the beginning of the 17th century, Galilean science was born, and this immediately raised serious religious problems... How did this confrontation between science and religion proceed during the Enlightenment?
Educators are much more politicians than scientists. In the 18th century, it was not so much about advancing science as a counterweight to religion, but about finding an independent foundation for the future political order. Yes, the enlighteners turned science into a symbol of the power of the human mind. But this is not the main problem for them. Only at the very end of the 19th century did the conflict between the man of science and the priests acquire a frontal character.
- What happens then? Why does coexistence between them become impossible?
1848 becomes a turning point. Over the course of ten years, science makes a series of major breakthroughs. Thermodynamics was discovered in 1847. In 1859, Darwin's Origin of Species was published: evolutionary theory appeared. At this point, the idea arises that a materialistic explanation of nature can completely replace religion. The ambition of science at that time was to propose a universal theory of natural phenomena. Give a complete, unified and exhaustive explanation of the secrets of nature. If in the times of Descartes and Leibniz physics still turned to metaphysics for help, then in the 19th century science claims to expel metaphysics.
- Can we say that from now on science establishes a monopoly on explaining the world?
The situation has looked this way for at least half a century. Imagine what a shock the theory of the evolution of species alone produced! In the time of Galileo, people did not even dare to ask the question of the origin of man. Darwin presented the exact opposite of the biblical account of the creation of the world. Evolutionary theory is the antipode of the theory of divine creation. Science is taking another important step. She truly believes that she is able to discover the higher laws of the functioning of the Universe. One of the most amazing followers of this idea was the German Eckel, the inventor of the word "ecology", who created the religion of Science. To the extent that people have unraveled the mysteries of the Universe, we are able to derive morality from science, to scientifically formulate the rules of human behavior based on the organization of the Cosmos. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, his Church of Science would attract many followers in Germany.
- Did Auguste Comte try to do the same thing in France?
There are significant differences between them. The religion of Auguste Comte is not a religion of Science, but of Humanity. We rather owe the theoretical understanding of the achievements of the second half of the 19th century to Herbert Spencer, an author who is also forgotten by many today. His philosophy, extremely popular in its time, was called “synthetic philosophy” precisely because it covered everything from the origin of matter and stars to sociology. This was a unique moment in the history of science. 
- Yes, but with all the power of the science of that time, is it alone responsible for the dying of the idea of God? And how did these ideas, intended for the elite, gradually affect the religious beliefs of the people?
You are right, the idea of God has not only been questioned by science. Emancipation from religion was also born out of the idea of human rights, which strongly challenged the rights of God. Power is no longer given from above: it stems from the legitimacy that belongs to individuals. History also helped this emancipation - the idea that people themselves create their own world. They are not subject to transcendental law: they work, they produce, they build a civilization - the creation of their hands. You don't need God for this. And then, let’s not forget that through the spread of schools, industrialization and medicine, science “descends” into people’s everyday lives. The Republic glorifies scientists. Pasteur, Marcelin Berthelot. In 1878, Claude Bernard even received a state funeral. This hegemony continues until the 1980s, when the scientific model begins to crack. Then there is talk about a crisis in science...
- So, the science of the 19th century never managed to commit its crime against God?
There is no need to talk about the death of God, he cannot die, he is immortal! At least in people's heads. As for the crisis of science, it still accompanies us in our world today. We no longer expect from science; staples it has said the last word about everything in the world. Science does not prove either the existence or absence of God, this is simply not its sphere.
- Today, the power of science coexists with a great desire for everything that in one way or another concerns the area of the sacred... How do you explain this?
The hegemony of science has become excessive and has become alarming. Science was very attractive when used in the fight against priests. She's scary today. Science is no longer a liberator, as it was in the days of “gloomy obscurantism.” She suppresses. Science is the only intellectual power. All other types of power are only its pitiful imitation. In this atmosphere of mistrust, many are tempted to resort to occult, metaphysical and religious explanations for things. What has completely died in Europe is sociological Christianity. But religious Christianity still glimmers.
The original message is on the website Inopressa.ru
for the magazine "Man Without Borders"
In the article we will briefly consider aspects of the relationship between religion and science in history and in the modern world, we will identify similarities and differences, general and special, arguments for and against, as well as ways of interaction between religion and science.
History and modernity
The history of the relationship between religion and science as such begins in the XVII-XVIII centuries in Europe, when with the development of natural sciences opposition to the Christian religion is intensifying (or philosophical and theological type of worldview, dominant in ) and science, which formed a new, “objectivist” or scientific type of worldview. The Roman Catholic Church, as well as Protestant churches and communities, repressed scientists as heretics who questioned the Holy Scriptures.Thus, in 1553, the Spanish naturalist and physician Miguel Servet (previously sentenced to death by the Catholic Inquisition) was burned by Calvinist Protestants in Geneva.In 1600, Giordano Bruno was condemned by the Inquisition and burned for promoting the Copernican teaching.In 1616, the Vatican officially recognized the heliocentric system as a dangerous heresy, which was also associated with the inquisition process against Galileo Galilei in 1632. From 1559 to 1948, the “Index of Forbidden Books” was published, which, along with non-Catholic (mainly Protestant)) religious literature also included the works of outstanding philosophers and scientists (including Catholics), which were prohibited from reading by the faithful of the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, in secular science the understanding of blind faith is spreading;is being formed rationalism as boundless, namely “blind” faith in the abilities of the mind; and in the 19th century — positivism, which gives an undeniable advantage to the positive sciences over religion and.The result was not only the spread of secular culture, the transformation of religion into a “private matter,” but also calls for the actual destruction of the Catholic Church - “let’s crush the reptile!” (Voltaire) and attempts to completely destroy religion as “the opium of the people” (K. Marx). Meanwhile, the experience of scientific development, scientific revolutions can already prove that scientific knowledge, which supposedly should be based on indisputable evidence, in fact often turns out to be erroneous and requires revision; in any case, it is always of a relative and not an absolute nature.
According to the Western tradition (Eastern cultures are characterized by syncretism), science as accurate and empirically verified knowledge that exists for the benefit of humanity is opposed to religion, the postulates of which are supposed to be taken on faith. At the same time, the scientific tradition is considered in isolation, excluding the relationship with other ways of knowing the world. In the ordinary mind, philosophers and scientists of the past appear as fighters against the irrational religious side of reality. However, such a view, i.e., viewing the past from a modern perspective, should be avoided.
In European culture, the task of science was defined as the motto of Galileo "V Everything that can be measured, measure; what is impossible, make it measurable" However, human life is not limited to the rational side. Most knowledge and beliefs were acquired by a person in an irrational way, therefore the philosophical and psychological schools of the twentieth century. explored the problem of a person’s loss of a holistic worldview, alienation from his true nature and essence.
Unity and differences of religion and science
Religion is aimed at identifying the integrity of the worldview that has been lost by man, offering knowledge taken on faith, unique axioms that deepen and are updated in the process of personal communication with God. Yes and the science, presenting knowledge in the form of facts, contributes to the emergence of a new vision of phenomena.
Obviously, it can be assumed that religion and science have two different subjects, two different ways of knowing, two different criteria of reliability, therefore they are completely independent and cannot be verified by each other.Lomonosov also stated: “ A mathematician argues incorrectly if he wants to measure God's will with a compass, but a theologian is also incorrect if he thinks that one can learn astronomy or chemistry from the Psalter». One cannot, for example, question the biblical account of the creation of man on the basis of a scientific conclusion about his descent from an ape, and vice versa, since here we are talking about completely different things.
The science cognizes the world in the relationship of its parts and elements, and not embracing the world as a whole and its relationship with the Absolute.Religion while cognizing, it reveals precisely the relationship of the world and man to God as a supernatural principle, as a higher power.Scientific knowledge requires external evidence, but faith is determined by its internal strength.It is possible to know only what is accessible to the senses, and “Faith is the earnest of what we hope for, the evidence of things unseen” (Heb. 11:1).In other words, Science is based on external, sensory experience, while faith is based on internal, spiritual experience. .
The independence of science and religion is connected with the independence of the world in relation to God.But this independence is relative.From a religious point of view, God is present in the world through man, as well as in world harmony, which is only to a certain extent disrupted by the elements of nature.Therefore, there actually is a deep connection and common ground between science and religion.Science as partial knowledge is based on, has a religious (or anti-religious) character, that is, it depends on spiritual interests, on the faith of both individuals and entire eras.Therefore, science cannot destroy religion - it can be non-religious only when religion itself is in a neglected state.
On the contrary, it is the depth of religious feeling that helps great scientists in their defining discoveries, since it evokes “delight before the omnipotent Builder of the universe” (Copernicus).It is no coincidence that the founder of modern rationalistic science, F. Bacon, once said: “ Only a superficial knowledge of nature can lead us away from God; on the contrary, what is deeper and more fundamental leads us back to Him ». But here is the opinion of the outstanding physicist of the 20th century.Max Planck: " Religion and science are not at all mutually exclusive, as was previously believed and as many of our contemporaries fear; on the contrary, they are consistent and complement each other. <...>For religion He represents the foundation, for science - the crown of development of the worldview ».
The Church has also recently made steps towards science.The famous Catholic theologian Hans Küng, an ideologist of the modernization of Catholicism, notes, for example, that the relationship and boundaries between religion and science are not determined by models of confrontation(or fundamentalist rejection of science, or rationalistic rejection of religion) and not on integration models (which consists in the actual adaptation of either science to the dogmas of religion, or religion to scientific theories), and on addition models , or critically constructive interaction , in which both sides maintain their own sphere, reject absolutization and mutually enrich each other, trying to betterunderstand reality as a whole in all its dimensions.The Orthodox priest and philosopher Vasily Zenkovsky argued in this regard that “ ratio of modern knowledge and indigenous ideas of Christianity can and should be mutually free». But at the same time, Christianity cannot be limited to the reception of only that in modern knowledge that is acceptable to it - “x Christian thought must engage in a revision of the foundations of knowledge in order to return Christianity to its rightful place in the development of knowledge».
By comparing the definitions of religion and science, we come to the conclusion that these are two aspects of social life that are different areas of spiritual culture and can exist side by side without destroying each other. The statement that religion and science are incompatible is completely false.
References:
1. Religion: a handbook for students of advanced knowledge / [G. E. Alyaev, O. V. Gorban, V. M. Meshkov et al.; for zag. ed. prof. G. E. Alyaeva]. - Poltava: TOV "ASMI", 2012. - 228 p.
2. Religion: The Beginning Handbook. 2nd view. / For ed. Mozgovoy L. I., Buchmi O. V. - K.: Center for Educational Literature, 2008. - 264 p.
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has, in fact, compiled the facts against faith: is there truth in religion (no), should science and religion be reconciled (no), will society lose anything if religion disappears (no). T&P publishes an excerpt in which Coyne talks about what Einstein called “divine” and why people believe the Bible more readily than science.
The good thing about science is that it is true whether you believe in it or not.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Scripture: Accurate Narrative or Allegory?
A common pattern in theology is that as various fields of science—evolutionary biology, geology, history, and archeology—refute religious dogmas one by one, those dogmas turn from literal truths into allegories. This is one of the biggest differences between science and religion. If a scientific claim is disproven, it immediately goes into the trash bin, where there are already many great ideas that simply did not pan out. When a religious statement is refuted, it is often turned into a metaphor that is meant to teach believers some kind of “lesson.” Although some biblical events are difficult to view as allegories (the whale that swallowed Jonah and the torment of Job are examples), the theological mind is endlessly inventive and can always find a moral or philosophical lesson in a fictional story. Hell, for example, became a metaphor for “separation from God.” And now that we know that Adam and Eve could not be the ancestors of all people living on Earth, in the “original sin” that they passed on to their offspring, some believers see a metaphor for human selfishness that developed in the process of evolution.
Further, many progressive believers are offended by the idea that almost everything in the Bible should be taken literally. One of the most frequently used arguments against this is: “The Bible is not a textbook.” When I see this phrase, I automatically translate it as “Not everything in the Bible is true,” because that is its meaning. The “not a textbook” statement, of course, serves as justification and permission for believers to choose for themselves the real truths in Scripture (or, for progressive Muslims such as Reza Aslan, in the Koran).
Isn't it time to follow the advice of the Apostle Paul addressed to the Corinthians: grow up and put away children's toys?
Indeed, even suggesting that there is a historical tradition of taking Scripture literally can be very upsetting to “modern” believers, since it is now common to argue that literalism is an exclusively modern phenomenon. I once wrote on my website that the story of Adam and Eve cannot be literally true because evolutionary genetics has shown that the human population size has always been much larger than one pair. Then writer Andrew Sullivan criticized me for suggesting that believers consider the first couple of people to be historical figures:
“There is no evidence that the Garden of Eden was always viewed figuratively? Really? Did Coyne himself read this thing? I despise anyone who, having brains (of course, whose brains are not clogged with fundamentalism), believes that all this should be interpreted literally.”
Nevertheless, for many centuries Christians (including the Catholic Church, to which Sullivan belongs) perceived Adam and Eve as the only ancestors of humanity. And this is not surprising, because the biblical description is quite specific and does not bear the slightest hint of allegoricality.
For example, when Jesus speaks in parables (think of the Good Samaritan), it is clear to everyone that he is simply telling a story to teach a certain lesson. But that is not how the book of Genesis is interpreted. Moreover, Catholics have always literally adhered to religious monogenism - the idea that all people are biologically descended from Adam and Eve. The reality of the Garden of Eden, the Fall, and Adam and Eve as our ancestors were all accepted without question by early theologians and church fathers such as St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Tertullian. […]
If faith is often based on facts, then when they are refuted, we might expect one of two things: either people will abandon their faith (or some part of it), or they will stubbornly deny facts and evidence that contradict their faith. The first option is rare, but there is ample evidence that at least the basic tenets of the faith are resistant to scientific evidence. 64% of Americans would maintain their religious beliefs even if science refuted them, and only 23% would consider changing their beliefs. Only slightly less discouraging results were obtained by Julian Baggini's online survey of British church-going Christians. 41% of respondents either agreed with the statement, “If science contradicts the Bible, I will believe the Bible over science,” or said they were more likely to agree than to disagree.
Is dialogue between science and religion possible?
People often call for a dialogue between science and religion, in which theologians, priests and rabbis should sit down with scientists and resolve all differences. Moreover, by “dialogue” we mean not just a conversation, but an exchange of opinions that will dispel any misunderstanding and will benefit both science and religion. In fact, such meetings take place regularly, including in the Vatican. Their motivation is expressed in the famous quote from Albert Einstein: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” But this quote is taken out of context, given which it becomes clear that when speaking about religion, Einstein meant only a deep reverence for the mysteries of the Universe. Einstein repeatedly denied the existence of a personal, theistic God and viewed the Abrahamic religions as false institutions invented by man. He was at best a pantheist and viewed nature itself as "divine." He believed that science would be at a dead end without deep, all-encompassing curiosity and wonder—traits that Einstein considered “religious.” Einstein's views, which are often misinterpreted, cannot serve as consolation either for the majority of theistic believers, or for those who are confident that a dialogue between science and faith will benefit both sides.
But is constructive dialogue possible? My answer is that everything useful comes from a monologue in which science speaks and religion listens. Moreover, this monologue will be constructive only for the listener. Scientists, of course, can learn something about the nature of religion from conversations with believers, but anyone who wants to get to know it better can learn the same thing. On the contrary, religion has nothing to say to science that would help it do its job. Indeed, the development of science required getting rid of the slightest remnants of religion, be it beliefs themselves or religious methods of searching for “truth.” We don't need these hypotheses.
If a scientific statement is refuted, it immediately goes into the trash bin. When a religious statement is refuted, it becomes a metaphor
On the other hand, religion can benefit from science in several ways - if we consider "science" in the broad sense of the word, and "religion" not only as a belief, but also as an institution. First, science can tell us about the evolutionary, cultural, and psychological underpinnings of religious belief. There are many theories about why people created religion, including the fear of death, the dream of a powerful patron, the desire of some to rule over others, and the natural human tendency to attribute natural phenomena to someone else's conscious will.
Of course, it is useful for everyone, including scientists, to learn more about religion, since it is one of the driving forces of humanity. It directs the course of history (as in the modern Middle East), deeply influences society (the politics of the modern United States is completely inexplicable without an understanding of American hyper-religiosity), and contributes to art, music and literature. Macbeth is full of biblical references. Without any idea of Christianity, Leonardo da Vinci's "Virgin Mary of the Rocks" is simply an image of a man, a woman and two small children. But the historical and artistic significance of religion is not a topic for dialogue between science and religion, the real purpose of which is to defend religion from science, to introduce religion into science, or to demonstrate that both are legitimate and complementary ways of seeking truth. […]
If only Muslims knew that Muhammad, like Joseph Smith, himself coined words that later became dogma; if Christians knew that Jesus was not resurrected and was not the son of God at all, but simply one of the many preachers of the apocalypse of that era; if theists knew that there were no reliable signs of God’s intervention in the affairs of the Universe, then the crowds of believers would instantly melt away, like snow under the spring sun. Of course, some educated believers and theologians believe that religion is independent of facts, but they are in a clear minority. Their “religion” is more of a philosophy, and it practically does not harm either science or society. […]
After all, why not find out how our world really works, instead of making up stories about it or accepting myths from centuries ago? And if we don’t know the answers, why don’t we just admit it, as scientists regularly do, and continue the search using objective data and reason? Isn't it time to follow the advice of the Apostle Paul addressed to the Corinthians: grow up and put away children's toys? Any reverence for faith strengthens those religions that cause real harm to our species and the planet. […]
Finally, although I am a scientist myself and deeply admire the wonders that science has brought to our lives in a short five centuries, I believe that religion is not only incompatible with science, but also hinders its development. I'm not proposing to create a robotic world ruled by science. The world I would like to live in is a world where the strength of a person's beliefs is proportional to the strength of the evidence. This is a world where you don’t have to rush to answer something you don’t know, and where doubting the statements of others is not taken as an insult.
