We find in the typical dispute between science and religion a classic debate and, above all, very wrong, this debate that confronts science and religion has been distorted to the point that the participants chose one and repudiated the other. kind of absurd reasoning on social media. And while there are many fools, attacks on defenders of the opposing position are no less so.
As always, there is a great misunderstanding: between defenders and detractors of the science-religion dilemma there is always a loser, the feeling of loss in a debate is always subjective, in the end this debate does not clarify or convince. one has moved to the other side or questioned its original position.
- To show some of the most commonly used arguments in this debate.
- We will talk about the two sides of the coin that can be found in any forum or social network where this topic is discussed.
- Proponents of science attack religious by arguing that what is written in sacred books is not true.
- For example.
- To overthrow Christianity.
- It is common to mention the myth of creation: how the first man was created by God and how the first woman of this man’s coast became.
In a distortion of evolutionary theories, defenders of religion claim that it is impossible for man to come from the monkey. This absurd debate, which begins with misinterpretations, is one of the most common. While some do not understand evolution, others interpret the Bible ignoring their metaphorical writing.
“Nature itself has impressed everyone’s mind with the idea of a God. ?Marco T. lio Cicero?”
Another of the most controversial topics is the religion of people who have distinguished the the most distinguished in history. The exponents of science and religion often quote philosophers, chemists, physicists and a number of illustrious characters who believed in God or not. scientists were the best; for others, the atheists were better. However, they only quote important people because they are important. They rarely speak of recognized scientists who have deepened religion or religiosity.
On the other hand, science has been considered the religion of our time, and religious people use scientific arguments to prove God’s existence. Clearly, arguments to prove its existence or non-existence eventually collapse without solving the problem.
These debates, far from pause and reflection, seek only to discredit the adversary, the fact that they develop on the Internet and not face to face facilitates the expression of people, the supposed anonymity provided by the Internet also makes the subject of the attack diffuse. When someone criticizes the position of religion or science, he does not attack some people, but the general aspect. Still, discussions can end because people consider what is said as personal.
This process encourages arguments to become increasingly ridiculous and focus on personal attacks than on the main issue; science and religion are compatible and there are different positions that make them up; those that don’t seem compatible are those who focus on the debate without listening to the other side’s arguments or taking the most critical interpretation.
It must be clear that science is a method: it can be understood as a tool that helps us understand the world, but science is not perfect. The method is not perfect and neither are those who use it, their conclusions can be flattered or false. There are many aspects of life that go beyond understanding science, although this does not mean that we must accept all the craziest theories and fall into absolute relativism.
“If the bulls and lions could paint, would the gods paint like bulls and lions?Jenofanes?
On the other hand, religion performs certain functions that tend to elude those with a simplistic vision. Religion serves to unite people, to alleviate the tensions and fears associated with death, to teach generosity and sharing. or false assumptions, they’re not bad in themselves. Those who can do evil are those who experience religion in different ways.
Scientist Carl Sagan presented a practical example of how science cannot interpret the totality of reality. Sagan said that we should think of a two-dimensional world where the inhabitants were flat squares. In this world, one day, suddenly, a bullet appears . The inhabitants of the square did not see that the balloon was floating in the air, but on one occasion the ball landed on the ground leaving a round mark, which surprised the locals.
This story, although absurd, serves to reconsider the possible unknown dimensions, we do not know everything and we will never know, so maintaining a critical mind, without offending those who think differently, will help us not to enter into absurd debates. . Disrespect only causes conflict and pushes people away. Dialogue and understanding foster closeness and understanding.