Quote:
|
Originally Posted by satorimind
I think they are complementary. One is the book of nature, the other is the book of faith.
I like Rabbi Jonathan Sacks quote from his great book, "The Great Partnership":
"Science takes things apart to see how they work; religion puts things together to see what they mean."
xx
|
I like the old adage...
Science achieves empirical ends by empirical ends;
Religion achieves non-empirical ends by non-empirical ends;
Magic achieves empirical ends by non-empirical means.
The problem is that science has no place for the subjective in its framework and so the 'self' literally disappears from view. And religion, in practice, frequently tips over into magic by its literal belief in miracles and 7 days creationism. They need to keep to their own non-overlapping domains. Science deals with the objective world, religion with the subjective. This involves a revision of our notions of what religion is. We have to read it as a form of art or literature. If you view it this way the question of whether there is a conflict between religion and science becomes as meaningless as asking whether the novel as an art form conflicts with science. However, I admit that this entails a revisionist theory of religion. ROD