menu myDiary

35088Yhd220 No Physics Experiment, no economic ...

Q&@
MODEL AND
NO MATHEMATICAL EQUATION
CAN DETERMINE WHETHER GENERATING THOUSANDS OF MEGAWATTS
AND MAKING BILLIONS OF YUAN IS MORE VALUABLE THAN SAVING AN ANCIENT PAGODA
OR THE CHINESE RIVER DOLPHIN? Consequently China cannot function
on the basis of scientific theories alone!

It requires some religion and/or ideology, too.
So some jump to the opposite extreme, and say that science &
religion are completely separate kingdoms. Science studies facts, religion speaks about values, & never the twain
shall meet!? Religion has nothing to say about scientific facts, and science should keep its mouth shut concerning
religious convictions?! If the Pope believes that human life is sacred, & abortion is therefore a sin, biologists can
neither prove nor refute this claim. As a private individual, each biologist
is welcome to argue with the Pope...

But as a scientist,
the biologist cannot enter the fray. This approach may sound sensible, but it misunderstands
religion. Though science indeed deals only with facts, religion never confines itself to ethical judgements. Religion
cannot provide us with any practical guidance unless it makes some factual claims too, and here it may well col-
lide with science. The most important segments of many religious dogma's are not their ethical principles, but
rather factual statements such as "G D EXISTS", 'THE SOUL IS PUNISHED FOR ITS SINS IN THE AFTERLIFE', or
'the Bible was written by a deity rather than by humans' & 'the Pope is nèver wròng'?!
These all seem actual claims?

Many of the most heated religious debates,
& many of the conflicts between science & religion, involve
such factual claims rather than ethical judgements. Evolution seemingly contradicting 'divine blessings',
politics prevailing over 'divine do's & don'ts', scientific discoveries replacing "G d's creation"
and chance happenings instead of 'religious stories
about blessings & punishments,
eternal good and bad
actions' or fantastic
battles in
space'?