tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post4064674487630736636..comments2024-03-19T09:06:21.507-04:00Comments on Irtiqa: Pew survey: If its down to science vs religion, religion will winSalman Hameedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-63770826696270477102007-09-04T20:57:00.000-04:002007-09-04T20:57:00.000-04:00Nizam,Well-said. Another related issue is about co...Nizam,<BR/><BR/>Well-said. Another related issue is about comfort - can science or empiricism provide comfort? This is again where two different approaches come into place. Do you want to be comforted by something that is unverifiable or you want to face all difficulties with the uncertainty inherent in science? Sagan, in his last book "Billions & Billions" has an amazing chapter called "In the Valley of Shadows". He wrote it when he knew that he had only a few months to live. He admits in it that it would be very comforting to know that there is afterlife and that he will again be united with his wife and kids. However, there is no evidence for afterlife. So he stressed on the value of evidence over something that is comforting and possibly not true. Ann Druyan (his wife) later wrote that Sagan didn't want to believe - he wanted to know. <BR/><BR/>Its a fantastic chapter. What made Sagan good was that he understood and appreciated the reasons why people choose to believe in these things. But he also articulated very clearly why he didn't.Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-11745352093293714482007-09-03T09:43:00.000-04:002007-09-03T09:43:00.000-04:00I'm not sure how this may connect with the phenome...I'm not sure how this may connect with the phenomenon described above, but many people see religion as static and science as being always changing as new theories develop and as technology enables different ways of observing the world. In this context, people may feel that if they put their "faith" in science as opposed to the religion of their choosing, they are putting their faith in something that is unstable and doesn't provide them with anything fixed or solid.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps one way to break down this impression would be to not emphasize specific scientific theories in opposition to specific faith-based explanations for natural phenomena (i.e. evolution v. creation), but rather to stress the scientific method and the philosophy of science as being the solid foundation of science that one may confidently adopt as an alternative to seeking truth in religious scriptures. <BR/><BR/>In other words, empiricism vs. dogmatism.<BR/><BR/>(One related difficulty will be people's concern that without religion, one supposedly cannot have morality. This can be adequately addressed using arguments constructed by Dawkins and others, showing that our morality does not, in fact, come from our religious texts and that independently-functioning human reason acts as a filter between scripture and our practiced morality.)Nizamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01405263000026616546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-65564057061268515192007-09-02T10:12:00.000-04:002007-09-02T10:12:00.000-04:00Please skip the spam-comment above.-SalmanPlease skip the spam-comment above.<BR/><BR/>-SalmanSalman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.com