This review essay of two recent books provides a useful introduction to some of the philosophical problems surrounding the compatibility of religion and science. Prof. Coyne thinks that religion and science can never really be made compatible – but is this right? How might one form an ‘indirect’ response to this kind of view?
It would appear, then, that one cannot be coherently religious and scientific at the same time. That alleged synthesis requires that with one part of your brain you accept only those things that are tested and supported by agreed-upon evidence, logic, and reason, while with the other part of your brain you accept things that are unsupportable or even falsified. In other words, the price of philosophical harmony is cognitive dissonance. Accepting both science and conventional faith leaves you with a double standard: rational on the origin of blood clotting, irrational on the Resurrection; rational on dinosaurs, irrational on virgin births.
Filed under: Indirect Responses, Questions, Religion, Scepticism | Leave a Comment
-
-
Recent Comments
PhillyChief on Nietzsche on Master and Slave… Rob Farrow on Nietzsche on Master and Slave… Rose on Nietzsche on Master and Slave… jon on Kant and Deontology Ben on Jim and The Indians -
Philosophy Classics- Philosophy Bites
- Catalin Avramescu on the Idea of Cannibalism
- Jeff McMahan on Killing in War
- Richard Bradley on Understanding Decisions
- Tony Coady on Dirty Hands in Politics
- John Campbell on Berkeley's Puzzle
- Brian Leiter on Nietzsche Myths
- John Armstrong on What You Can Do With Philosophy
- Walter Sinnott-Armstrong on Morality Without God
- Sabine Doring on Emotion
- Ben Rogers on Pascal's Pensées
No Responses Yet to “Religion, Science and Secular Reason”