Religion and Science
One of the elements of our national discourse is the topic of our educational system. Is it working or not? We are consistently ranked in various lower levels when compared to other Western industrialized countries. There are all kinds of theories as to why. But I have to believe that much of our difficulty is caused by the lack of national standards. Each state determines its own. It’s probable that a successful graduate of one state can’t pass proficiency testing in another state.
To complicate the issue, the state of Texas has enormous influence over the entire textbook market because of it size. Remember, volume is profits and profits are king. That’s not so bad except that the citizen’s board that determines the content of these textbooks holds strong religiously inspired views about teaching some things and ignoring others. That’s bad indeed. But what’s worse is that they insist on changing the “facts” that they allow in their books.
So what we have is competing stories about important information that our children need for their futures. The test should be whether that information (competing story) is useful for two reasons: preparing the child for success in: material and emotional satisfaction.
Here’s the problem that I see: Some religious beliefs are antithetical to modern science. Two present examples are belief in the inerrancy of the Bible and the infallibility of the Pope (ex cathedra). All of this sounds rather arrogant to me; two major Christian bodies declaring that their truth is the right one. But at least we have a choice. We can believe or disbelieve either position. We can join them or ignore them. It’s a personal thing. That is, until either of these belief systems begin to influence our textbooks and ultimately our children in public schools and then the quality of our education in science.
You can argue that religious beliefs are based on solid evidence, but you cannot argue that point with objectivity. There is no objective evidence for any religious belief. Consequently no argument can be objectively reconciled. Religion requires faith. And science requires evidence. They are two entirely different domains of inquiry.
For instance, would you accept the opinion of a physicist who determines that your Bible is only a physical object and therefore just a collection of neutrons, protons and electrons? If you are a religious person, probably not. Then why would you expect modern science to accept that the authors of the Bible are authorities on the origins of the universe?
So how is it that we, a nation built on the concept of the separation of church and state, are allowing well-meaning, but objectively wrong-headed people, to influence our educational system? The United States needs to compete with the rest of the world for limited resources. We cannot compete without a strong science curriculum. We will not have a strong science curriculum if we allow people to determine what is and what is not acceptable science based on their religious beliefs. Science is science and religion is religion. They just do not mix, no matter how some may want them to.
This war on science lies at the heart of the political right’s anti-intellectualism. Any platform that mixes concrete science with 2000 year old mythology cannot be depended on to keep us at the forefront of invention, productivity and the creativity that we need to compete in the global economy. We should limit religion to our churches and families and science to our schools.
It has been said, that one hallmark of the current postmodern era is the deconstruction of our great “competing stories” – our mythologies. Although, it is popular to say everyone has a right to his own opinion, the reality is that certain opinions are just not valid. And the only way we can reconcile which is which, is by keeping those opinions confined to their respective domains of inquiry.
Science cannot answer questions of faith. And religion cannot answer question of science.
Robert DeFilippis
To complicate the issue, the state of Texas has enormous influence over the entire textbook market because of it size. Remember, volume is profits and profits are king. That’s not so bad except that the citizen’s board that determines the content of these textbooks holds strong religiously inspired views about teaching some things and ignoring others. That’s bad indeed. But what’s worse is that they insist on changing the “facts” that they allow in their books.
So what we have is competing stories about important information that our children need for their futures. The test should be whether that information (competing story) is useful for two reasons: preparing the child for success in: material and emotional satisfaction.
Here’s the problem that I see: Some religious beliefs are antithetical to modern science. Two present examples are belief in the inerrancy of the Bible and the infallibility of the Pope (ex cathedra). All of this sounds rather arrogant to me; two major Christian bodies declaring that their truth is the right one. But at least we have a choice. We can believe or disbelieve either position. We can join them or ignore them. It’s a personal thing. That is, until either of these belief systems begin to influence our textbooks and ultimately our children in public schools and then the quality of our education in science.
You can argue that religious beliefs are based on solid evidence, but you cannot argue that point with objectivity. There is no objective evidence for any religious belief. Consequently no argument can be objectively reconciled. Religion requires faith. And science requires evidence. They are two entirely different domains of inquiry.
For instance, would you accept the opinion of a physicist who determines that your Bible is only a physical object and therefore just a collection of neutrons, protons and electrons? If you are a religious person, probably not. Then why would you expect modern science to accept that the authors of the Bible are authorities on the origins of the universe?
So how is it that we, a nation built on the concept of the separation of church and state, are allowing well-meaning, but objectively wrong-headed people, to influence our educational system? The United States needs to compete with the rest of the world for limited resources. We cannot compete without a strong science curriculum. We will not have a strong science curriculum if we allow people to determine what is and what is not acceptable science based on their religious beliefs. Science is science and religion is religion. They just do not mix, no matter how some may want them to.
This war on science lies at the heart of the political right’s anti-intellectualism. Any platform that mixes concrete science with 2000 year old mythology cannot be depended on to keep us at the forefront of invention, productivity and the creativity that we need to compete in the global economy. We should limit religion to our churches and families and science to our schools.
It has been said, that one hallmark of the current postmodern era is the deconstruction of our great “competing stories” – our mythologies. Although, it is popular to say everyone has a right to his own opinion, the reality is that certain opinions are just not valid. And the only way we can reconcile which is which, is by keeping those opinions confined to their respective domains of inquiry.
Science cannot answer questions of faith. And religion cannot answer question of science.
Robert DeFilippis
Comments
Post a Comment