Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapagos
|
Wow! Thanks....
I was just thinking about the clip.
It's an interesting question that comes up in this Sam Harris discussion.
What happens when religious dogma conflicts with scientific dogma?
I've been trying to approach these questions with a reconciliatory view.
If, as a human, one can try to "translate" the contrary view into a non-threatening framework, then interesting new questions arise; the debate might progress.
For instance:
The Earth is 6000 years old!
Hmmmm, okay; but you know that G0d laid down all this "evidence" that tells us about how the planet changes over time. Was this to fool us, or to inform us?
What we should be debating (with religious people) is whether or not to use these clues that G0d gave us to help save humanity and the Creation.
Humans didn't "evolve" from Apes!
Hmmmm, okay; but you know that G0d made Apes (and other mammals, life, etc.) similar enough to Humans that we can learn a lot about our physiology, diseases, and metabolism from them.
We should be debating whether or not to use this knowledge to help save humanity and the Creation.
If scientists could try to view religious dogma as a system of jargon to be translated into more familiar jargon, then maybe the conversation could progress onto more meaningful, rewarding questions and goals.
I know this could be unrealistic depending on the people, laws, or other circumstances involved; but occasionally this might be an available option.

Well, I'll have to watch the whole deal, eh?
Thanks again!