Karl Giberson's Huffington Post piece, "The Top Peacemaker in the Science-Religion Wars: John Polkinghorne," is yet another example of just how ignorant people are when it comes to distinguishing between individual perspectives on specific institutions and the nature of those institutions. In a previous post (Science Vs. Religion, November 6, 2011) I pointed out how it is possible for individuals to not find conflict between religion and science but that that is not the same as there not being a conflict.
The notion of a "peacemaker" to the conflict between religion and science is ludicrous. The conflict is innate. These institutions are opposites in many ways. To me this claim would be the same as saying we can have both full light and full darkness simultaneously. We can't! It is not possible. By their basic traits and definitions religion and science as institutions are not reconcilable.
For the record, "peacemakers" like Polkinghorne should be seen as diluting science and blurring the distinct lines between the two institutions. That is a horrible thing. Any theist who wants to argue I suggest trying to live without any modern technology (medicine, computers, transportation, etc...) and instead try living by religious doctrines and traditions alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment