I've been mulling this idea around in my head for a few days now after visiting my brother fairly recently. We were discussing the age-old topic of religion when he had me watch this presentation by Neil Tyson concerning the detrimental role religion, more specifically intelligent design, can have upon scientific progress when called upon. The mild debate we were having regarding this matter was never fated to get very heated. My brother, at least now, classifies himself mostly as an atheist and, to the best of my knowledge, believes religion to be outright detrimental to the human race as a whole. As for myself, I align more towards an agnostic atheistic school of thought; in essence, I also do not believe in the existence of a personal god yet simultaneously do not discount the possibility for others, nor do I believe religion holds any absolute detriment to mankind. As a result, even if we weren't on the same page, we were most assuredly within the same book.
While I've heard the usual claims that without religion there would be less conflict, dissonance, etc. in the world, I've never heard a compelling, quantifiable argument against religion itself. Not really, anyway. In the video, however, Tyson argues that intelligent design should be taught in the classroom as an example of what not to do. He makes a very cohesive point concerning the dangers of enacting intelligent design by bringing up countless thinkers that have been limited in their discoveries due to the idea that only God was capable of solving certain problems (i.e.- enacting intelligent design). Tyson's point is that the so-called "unsolvable" problems were then solved by other mere mortals at later points in time.
The most interesting example Tyson brings up by far, however, is the case of medieval Islam roughly 1,000 years ago when Hamid al-Ghazali essentially claimed many scientific discoveries as sacrilegious in nature. Religion in this case basically halted all scientific progress. Halted human intellectual development.
My brother at least felt that this served as a good example of the overall negative impact religion can have. Indeed, I found Tyson's argument to be equally convincing against religion, but a thought that I can't quite separate myself from is the objective good of human progress. In Tyson's case, he was arguing against religion in relation to scientific discovery. In that regard, I agree wholeheartedly: intelligent design, by its very nature, most assuredly limits discovery. Where I'm not so sure is if that is inherently negative or not. Happiness, for me, is the most important aspect of humanity given that it doesn't forcibly encroach on another individual's happiness (which admittedly is sometimes impossible). While religion may indeed halt scientific progress, if that is what the majority of people desire who is anyone to say that a halting of said progress is, objectively, a bad thing? Like religion can sometimes give people inner peace and happiness, scientific progress can sometimes cure diseases, extend lifespans, and encourage discovery. However, just as religion can fuel conflict and strife, scientific progress can create environmental destruction and devastating weaponry. In the long run, who knows which is more detrimental than the other? I certainly do not.
That's an interesting perspective. Relative to intelligent design, I would have to say though that the majority of people are not in favor of that being taught as fact.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I don't have any statistical data to prove as much, but I'd imagine most people would not want ID taught in concordance with the various other tested scientific theories. Even if a good chunk of the population believes in a divine influence, not all of them would want their beliefs enforced upon others. I do think Tyson has a valid point, though; the impact intelligent design (whether positive or negative) has had on the scientific community should definitely be examined and discussed in classrooms.
ReplyDelete