Ojuice5001

One of the greatest books I have read is The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton. I recommend it to anyone, Christian, atheist, or neither.

One of the themes of that book is that in pagan culture there was a separation between mythology and philosophy. Each had some truth, but no one before the Catholic Church was able to combine the two kinds of truth. Here is a quote from the book that puts it especially well.

I agree with Chesterton's idea that Christianity did a good job of combining mythological and philosophical thought. One way to see this is that paganism never produced people like Thomas Aquinas, who were both great philosophers and deeply religious.

Don't get me wrong; I think Apollo and Aristotle had much more truth than Christianity. But less unification of truth. When creating Christianity, Jehovah sacrificed truth in the interest of unity (and his own power over humans and the other gods). An analogy to my position is that of a physicist who rejects superstring theory. This physicist thinks superstring theory is false, but he doesn't deny it unifies knowledge.

Now, go back to the quote above. It is really a great description of the relation of science and religion today. They conflict sometimes, but in general they stick to separate functions. At least that's how most people see it. It's safe to say that a lot of the atheism in the world generally, and around the SecWeb, is due to an especially intense perception of the conflict between science and religion. Meanwhile, most sensible theists settle for believing a theology that gets along with science, and a philosophy of science that isn't hostile to theology.

But that isn't the same kind of combination that Chesterton claims was made between myths and philosophy. When you see what Catholicism did for myths vs. philosophy, it seems plausible that the gods (if there are gods) may someday do the same thing for science vs. religion. I think someday a new religion will be created that will do this. I don't think it will be a form of Christianity, since Christians, almost by definition, have an absurd reverence for the Bible that would get in the way. I don't have any reason to think I am a part of this movement's success. It will probably be some religion that no one would expect, just as no one would have expected the Jews to come up with a religion for the world. The point of this post is, don't be so sure that there really is an inevitable "warfare between science and theology" that can only end when one of the two wins. In 100 BCE, people would have said the same thing about the priest and the philosopher.

Bill

Good thinking. You have grasped part of the reason why I formed an <a href="http://www.agnostic.org/" target="_blank">Agnostic Church</a>. What remains is to figure out how to make it popular......

== Bill

emotional

You know why science and revealed religion are in necessary conflict? Not because of a conspiracy, but simply because of the basic "impudence" of scientific research: it ignores revelation. You see, if you take the Bible or Qur'an as your authoritative guide to the Universe, your "research" will "reveal" only that which is in accordance with "God's Word". But the scientific method relies on senses, on investigation of nature, and not on scripture, and thus reveals things which are in no way in accordance with the "revealed religions". Could "revealed religion" possibly accept vestigial organs, such as the coccyx and the plantaris muscle? No, it takes an independent research to accept such things.

The primacy of natural fact: that if natural fact be in conflict with the description of nature in Scripture, then natural fact prevails, and cancels the authority of Scripture. In other words: scientific research proves that the Bible, the Qur'an, and many other scriptures, are not the Word of God. Case closed.

DarkDruid

Acctually, when you have something like the early church and its stranglehold on society, the only way anyone can become educated is to become a preist. I don't see that as much of a unification.

JohnHind

So Christianity has sacrificed truth in order to unify truth? Run that past me again please?

The important difference between science and religion is not about results, it is about methodology. Religion is characteristically a closed, reactionary system which insists it had a pristine and perfect truth at some point in the past and exists to defend this truth against the forces of entropy and against opposing religious systems. Science on the other hand is an open system which looks forward to ever closer approximations to truth. In practical terms, religion fragments over time while science converges.

Of course you could create a new religion today that incorporates the latest scientific thinking in the same way that Christianity did at its foundation, but a few decades later, science would have moved on and your religion would either have to admit it was wrong and move with science or else end up defending an increasingly outdated scientific position.

On the mythology side, why the need to unify it? We have a vibrant and pluralistic mythology in the modern world rather like that of the classical period. This is, to my mind, much to be preferred to the coercive grey conformity that the monotheistic religions seek to impose through censorship and control of education. If we see mythology in terms of the arts and media rather than of religion then this too can be an open system.

Face it, religion is simply redundant.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: JohnHind ]</p>

RyanS2

"One way to see this is that paganism never produced people like Thomas Aquinas, who were both great philosophers and deeply religious."

Maybe I'm rusty on debate tactics, but isn't it a somewhat strained argumentative statement to assert that a subjective interpretation is an objective truth? Let's also not forget how much of the actual writings we have from Greece and Rome. It's not a very impressive amount.

NialScorva

I dunno. I always took it as given that philosophical truth only started to make progress as religion waned from the philosophical mainstream. Science is similar, it makes progress in spite of religion, not because of religion. Just my opinions, of course.

isaac42

And why is that a good thing? IMO, Aquinas has contributed little to civilization, while Aristotle, or, better yet, Archimedes, has contributed much. By your own admission, the synthesis gave up much, but I see no compensation.

Isaac