- The starting point for a fruitful dialogue between science and religion today must be: science is the best we have from the point of view of physical and biological knowledge and the most dangerous creation we have created from the point of view of morality.[1].
- This contradiction, or dual contradictory value, of science has become more acute in our time, because in its most advanced fields, science has merged with technology to form a unique complex, what we call technoscience or the scientific-technical complex. Biotechnology is the best current example of this fusion.
- If this starting point is accepted, the most logical thing would be for institutional science to humbly acknowledge its contradictions and humbly acknowledge its limitations. For example, to say that we ignore and will ignore[2] In many areas of basic knowledge, especially in those areas that have a great deal to do with human habits or behaviors that can be classified as good or bad.
- For the same reason, if this starting point is accepted, religions must abandon their disputes with science at the level of physical and biological knowledge. Religions must recognize that this is a long-lost battle, and confine themselves to the realm of human behavior, to the realm of ethics.
- All historical conflicts between science and religion have been due to the excesses of institutional religions, and their attempts to enter into conflict with science. At all levels of knowledgeThis had already happened in classical Greece when the religion of Asclepius conflicted with Hippocratic medicine (which leaned towards science).[3]And it happened again, in modern times, with regard to the theories of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin.[4]who were not, by the way, anti-religious people, but people who wanted to separate the planes under discussion, despite being distorted by the institutional religions (Protestantism, Catholicism, Anglicanism).
It is absurd in this sense that the Vatican has for decades and decades held a prize for those who prove that Galileo and Darwin were wrong, or that even today some religions claim that the myth of creation and the theory of evolution should be taught equally in schools.[5]This tarnishes the reputation of any religion in the eyes of reason.
- Now, in all religions (whether institutionalized in churches or not) there is a knowledge that we can call Cognitiveabout the customs and behaviors of human beings in society through which moral commandments, advice, or norms are expressed that have great value because they are generally the result of long-repeated observations and very prominent psychological and social reflections. Such observations and reflections can be found in the three scriptural religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and in other religions that lie halfway between what we call religion and what we call philosophy.
This rational knowledge deserves to be preserved, known and taught, quite independently of whether the people who preserve it or to whom it is taught believe or do not believe in the basic doctrines or tenets of those religions, for example, in divine creation, in the transmigration of souls, in the resurrection of the body or in the existence of the Holy Trinity.
I say that it is appropriate to preserve this knowledge not only for historical reasons, that is, because this or that religion was part of our cultural tradition in the past, but also for a more decisive and modern reason: because as far as human behavior, manners, and customs are concerned, the sciences, or what we call the “humanities” or “social sciences,” have not advanced enough to say without doubt that our knowledge in this field is certainly superior to the rational knowledge of life and human practice.
- In this area, religions do not necessarily conflict with science. Or rather: there is no great conflict. The evidence for this is that many of the great contemporary scientists have read these texts and appreciated them greatly, and even considered themselves religious, accepting them, without realizing that there is a contradiction between them and their contributions to physical knowledge. Or the biologist Einstein is the most famous case of the twentieth century. Einstein happens to be the great scientist of the century[6]But the same can be said of a group of current scholars.
- In the field of human conduct, habits or behaviors subject to moral evaluation, the conflict today is not between religion and science, but between religion and philosophy. What we call bioethics is precisely the battlefield in this sense.[7]There is a difference between morality based on religion and morality based on atheism or agnosticism on a philosophical basis.[8]This does not mean that scientists remain on the sidelines of this battle. As human beings, like everyone else, they have a say in the matter, and they cannot escape thinking about the moral consequences of what they discover or invent.[9].
But the important thing at this point is that science cannot settle the dispute. It can, at most, point out that there are bioethics that cannot be supported by the current state of knowledge in genetics, biology, neuroscience, psychology, and so on.[10].
[1] See FFP, The illusion of the method. Ideas of temperamental rationality, Barcelona: Crítica, 1991 (there is a reissue in paperback in 2004, with a new author's introduction).
[2] Referring to the consideration of the Emile logo du Boa-Raymond. This came in the editorial of the first issue of the magazine “Meanwhile”.
[3] See FFP, For the third culture Old Mole, 2012, pp. 395-401.
[4] You can see the FFB texts on these authors, prepared for the Methodology and History of Science courses in the 1990s, at FFB Arxiu (University Pompeu Fabra. Biblioteca/CRAI de la Ciutadella)
[5] This continues to happen, except through fault on my part, in some US states.
[6] One of the most studied scientists (and philosophers) by the author. Among your estimates, FFB, Albert Einstein. Science and ConsciousnessOld Mole Pictures, 2005.
[7] See FFB “On Technical Sciences and Bioethics” (Parts I and II), Bioethics Journal of the Federal Council of Medicine of BrazilVol. 8, No. 1, Brasilia, 2001, pp. 13-27, and Vol. 8, No. 2, Brasilia, 2001, pp. 187-204.
[8] The author's philosophical position.
[9] See FFB, “Should science be left in the hands of scientists?”, UNED Conference, Barbastro, 22 November 2007, UPF Library.
[10] See FFP, Ethics and Political PhilosophyBarcelona: Bellaterra Editions, 2000.
Related books:
