Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Religion and science: need there be a clash?

By Stephen Cheleda - posted Tuesday, 19 May 2009


  1. the brainwashing of people into accepting belief systems;
  2. religions cause conflicts; and
  3. a general unease by many who, although they may accept many aspects of evolutionary biology, nonetheless question the seeming insistence on the “animal” aspects of humans.

These salient issues ought to be looked at, albeit briefly.

Brainwashing people to accept belief systems

This claim ignores the propensity of humans to look beyond their own self since time immemorial. John Ness clearly pointed out (in On Line Opinion, July 15, 2008) that our inherent morals and values preceded any organised religion. Morals are a code of behaviour that ensures the survival of the species and, in complex beings such as humans, this requires certain considerations for the welfare of others. There are certain “mirror” genes, which form the basis of emphatic behaviour.

Advertisement

There seems to be a common factor in all past and present belief systems. It is the adherence to self-discipline and the importance of a set of rules. For example, the Old Testament can be viewed as a demonstration of the absolute need for self-discipline. Lack of self-discipline, and not adhering to a set of rules is detrimental to the individual and to society. It was so then, and it is so now.

If we consider skills that, for example, a nurse or engineer may possess, those skills need intense training and self-discipline to develop. Scientific facts are not like music, which can be appreciated by virtually anyone, at any age. The appreciation of facts, such as “geological time”, or “carbon dating” needs training and the consideration of evidence. Likewise, scientists should not just dismiss ancient texts, which are regarded by many as a source of accumulated wisdom. The Old Testament may be a myth, but none-the-less, just as Greek Mythology, it reflects deep psychological truths.

It is also important to realise that, as the disastrous cult of personality has shown in totalitarian systems, the source of self-discipline must be independent of the individual. Ever since Darwin, it has always been a vexed question to define the source of that self-discipline and the source of the set of rules. It may be that it is inherent in every individual.

Religions cause conflicts

To address this claim we have to look beyond the very simple explanation of historical events. It is the economic needs or pressures of the mass of ordinary individuals that causes conflicts, not necessarily religion.

For example, conflicts such as the “troubles” in Northern Ireland, which are portrayed as a conflict between Catholics and Protestants: the fact is often overlooked that the Catholic community was excluded from job opportunities, and education was divided. While all this was going on in Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants lived peaceably together in the rest of Europe because there was not the institutionalised segregation between them as regards jobs and education.

In fact, in all the trouble spots around the world, the institutionalised exclusion of one community versus another can be observed, irrespective of religion.

Advertisement

Evolutionary biology

The third, and probably the most important unease caused by those who do not fully support evolution are the currently held views of a human being. Defining a human as an animal, albeit capable of abstract thought and capable of using complex tools, is, somehow, inadequate. After all, many animals, not just the chimpanzees, use tools of one kind or another. And regarding communication, immediately dolphins come to mind. The great apes may be our most recent evolutionary ancestors, but even then, probably millions of generations, (as opposed to millions of years) have passed by since the divergence in evolution.

Species diverged because of environmental pressures. Can those changes in environmental sequences be replicated, including the massive volcanic eruptions, the gigantic meteoric impacts, the drifting of the continents, ice ages, the enormous fluctuations in sea levels, and the powerful solar flares?

If we consider the current prevailing definition of a human being, it is claimed that humans have developed exponentially greater skills in using tools; and language has given them a virtually limitless ability to communicate. This definition of a human being is not adequate. It implies that there is only quantitative and not qualitative differences between humans and our nearest evolutionary ancestors.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

130 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Cheleda was born in Budapest in 1938 and has lived in the UK since December 1956. After working in industry, he became a teacher of Mathematics in 1971. Stephen did an MA in Peace Studies at the University of Bradford. He retired in 2003.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Cheleda

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 130 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy