Chris
Easy. Many Christians hold that we Earth is the sole planet in the entire
Universe with life on it. If life is found on Mars, this will be
contradicted by objective fact. They will then either have to change their
views, or simply refuse to believe it, even if numerous samples of Martian
life are eventually brought back.
Mike
> We have long been told by many authorities in the scientific
> field that religion and science are completely separate.
> But if they were completely separate, there would be no
> reason whatsoever to anticipate religious reactions to scientific
> findings. Thus, it is simply irrational to argue on one hand
> that the two realms are completely different, but on the other
> hand, argue that religion will need to adjust to scientific claims.
>
> But it is true, as Scott noted, that Hinduism and Buddhism would
> be much less concerned with finding life on other planets. This
> is because for these introspective religions, it is more valid to say
> that religion and science are totally separate.
Chris
It is also because they don't, as far as I know, make any claims to the
effect that Earth is the only life-inhabited planet.
Mike
> The standard way origins is taught in government schools is
> to argue that science deals only with the natural world and
> religions deals with different issues. Yet if tax-payer money
> is used to promote this thinking, isn't it denigrating the
> religious views of Christians/Jews/Muslims (whose theology
> would have to react to scientific claims yet is excluded from sitting
> at the table of scienitific speculation)
Chris
Pray tell, how are they excluded from sitting at this table, and exactly
what do you mean by "this table," anyway? Besides, mostly, Christianity has
*done* it's speculation. That's why Stephen's notion that ID theory is in
its infancy is so silly. ID theory has been around since long before Christ.
It's changed its name, but its the same idea, with added pseudo-scientific
window-dressing.
Mike
> and promoting
> the religious views of Hindus/Buddhists (whose theology is
> more in line with the divorce between the physical and
> spiritual)?
>
> I'm not interested in flame-war type replies (or mere
> posturing). I'm more interested in insightful, open-minded
> comments. As I said, I oppose teaching creationism/ID
> in government schools, but nevertheless, there still appears
> to be a serious problem of subtle favoritism that deserves
> attention.
Chris
Yes, there is. Government schooling, government funding of research,
government funding of the arts, government funding of businesses, and (to a
lesser degree) government purchases of goods and services all favor whatever
views are most compatible with its views, regardless of whether they are
religious or not. It is obvious that many whose views are not designated as
"religious" nevertheless get treated as either government religion or
relgions that are opposed to the government do in other societies.
Government schooling is, itself, to some extent, a kind of "religious"
training, in our culture's secular "religions." As I said in an earlier
post, letting government "educate" people is the *same*, in essence, as
letting government dictate their religious beliefs (or at least their
religious "observances").
And, it's not all that subtle, either. The IRS is given lots of leeway in
determining who gets religious tax-exempt status, for example. It's pretty
arbitrary what they decide is and is not a religion. If your church is one
of the long-established religions, like Catholicism or Judaism or most
ordinary Protestant denominations, you're in. But if you start up your own
religion but don't happen to include enough of the *conventional* trappings
of a religion, your church may have trouble getting tax-exempt status.
It might be argued that this is discrimination in *favor* of religions by
government, since the IRS is favoring them over non-religious denominations,
and this is largely true. But it is still government doing the deciding, and
not ultimately on the basis of any objective criteria, but on the basis of
whether they feel they can get away with taxing your church or not.
What the IRS not-taketh away, the school system does, however. But does it
balance out? No. These things never do.
But, should government be involved either way? Should government be taxing
"non-relgious" religions just because it doesn't choose to classify it as a
religion? Should government be subsidizing or penalizing *any* set of
religious, philosophical, or other ideas?
No, except to the extent that protecting us from each other (not from
ourselves) implicitly involves such encouragement/discouragement (i.e., the
rapist apprehended and imprisoned for life is "discouraged" from doing it
again, and, in a free society -- *not* ours -- the civilized and decent
people are left free to do as they please). Since nothing else than
protection of our rights can justify government, the very acceptance of
government means that *this* kind of "favoritism" (of civilized people over
true criminals) is inherent in a free society (that's what political freedom
*is*, in a sense: The state of being "favored" (by government) over those
who initiate the use of physical force (or objectively validated
equivalents, such as fraud) against us).
But, conventional governments always favor some kinds of religion and some
kinds of philosophy over others (though not necessarily consistently, as the
IRS example shows). And, everyone pretty much uses the same justification:
"I/we have the right to do it because *our* views are *true*." Of course,
that's exactly what everyone *else* says as the reason they should get to
impose *their* views: "No, *our* views are true." Then the first group
replies: "I know you *say* that, but in our case it's *true*." This kind of
reductio ad absurdum is inherent in the idea that *any* person or group
should get to forcibly impose its views on others; no matter how many times
each person replies with some variation to the other, *neither* side is
*right,* even if the views they seek to impose *are* true." What this means
is simple: Having a "lock" on the truth does not justify coercion, because
the claim that it does cannot be maintained consistently, cannot be
maintained without a blatant double standard. This contradiction cannot be
gotten around, not even by the egotistical claim of being among the
"anointed," as many liberals and religious right conservatives implicitly do
claim.
Of course, neither side is willing to give up the attempt to run the lives
of everyone else merely to hold rational philosophical and moral views, so
we will have to put up with this kind of political gang warfare for a while
longer, at great expense to all of us. The answer is: No. We *can't* all
just get along. At least not under today's dominant philosophical premises
(especially, as I indicated in another post, the dominant *epistemological*
views, which provide rich soil for all the rest on both sides).