Science and Religion

On the everything-list it came to discussion about science and religion and I will cite answers by Bruno Marchal

I was raised in former Soviet Union where scientific atheism was used as the official religion. Hence Bruno’s answers sound a bit strange for myself but I should confess that what he says somehow makes sense, although I have no idea what theology actually is.

“But theology is a science, like biology, zoology, physics, etc. By abandoning theology to the authoritative church, not only we have lost the most fundamental science, but we have erect automatically another science, physics, into a pseudo-theology, that is a science which acts as a theology without saying. That is why if you humbly try to explain that today science have not yet solve the traditional question on the after-life, the meaning of life, or the mind-body problem, people can look at you as if you were crackpot, because, they pretend, science has shown that such question are meaningless, which of course is not the case.”

“Science is belief, that is doubtable or falsifiable belief. It is always hypothetical, and always with an intention of clarity so that we can say clearly  “we were wrong”. Theology should be done with that same modest attitude, with the assumption put clearly on the table, and then it will evolve accordingly. We have to reintroduce theology, non confessional theology, in the academic curriculum, but that will takes time, given more than 1500 years of constant general brainwashing in the field.”

 “The true mystics know that religion is by its very nature at the complete opposite of the authoritative argument, and most religions have originally accept that principle at the start. “God” has no name, cannot be used for any public purpose, and has to be a matter of private conviction or feeling/inspiration only, exactly like in mathematics.”


One response to “Science and Religion”

Comments are now closed
  1. Science and Religion |…

    Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……