Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
You presented a rationale for the Adam-Eve thingy and then you say God's actions can't be rationalised.
The former carried no commentary on intent....i.e the why....simply that its one possibility of what could be a logical argument for what is...given we have no idea of the "why" behind absolutes.
The point I was trying to make was a very simple one, an evolutionary biologist cannot believe in evolution and at the same time say that God explained the human origin allegorically with the concept of Adam and Eve when he knows that a 2000-year-old brain was certainly evolved enough to grasp the concept of evolution the way it is taught to today's students.
Like I said if god is absolute he doesn't come into the picture of trying to explain his actions through relative standards. A Scientist can have an interpretation of an absolutist god that revealed religious structure, explanation and doctrine (either explicitly or implicitly) for reasons (if any reasons even exist) that simply are unknown to us. It's like asking Science the question why did the big bang happen? Assuming the theory as truth, we just know it happened (a singularity like the big bang is much a physical representation of an absolute that I can think of), the question why is simply irrelevant....and unanswerable anyway.
Hence, to say that a scientist can be good at what he does and still believe in an allegorical interpretation of religious doctrine is certainly a fallacy.
If there is major intersection between his field of study and the literal religious doctrine (taken to be absolute truth), then there is definite deterioration in his/her ability to deduce logically proportional to that intersection. I would find it hard for a strict literal interpreter/believer in such doctrine to even be able to approach science (that involves what that religion can be taken to be literal about) in the first place.
If the interpretation is taken to be allegorical and not literal, I fail to see why that automatically means he cannot be good at science....since allegory by its very definition is end-meaning, end-moral motivated rather than absolute-truth based and dogma-motivated for every detail. You can thus apply whatever degree of it you feel necessary to contain, mitigate and manage the logical conflict that may otherwise arise through literal dogmatic interpretation.
So yes he would be near 100% of the time fundamentally flawed if he has a strong literal interpretation of non-science based doctrine and claims to be a scientist in fields that overlap with this doctrine. But not the case with allegorical interpretations (and others that achieve the same) and also not the case if there is no or little overlap to begin with (even with strong literal interpretation). Why would a scientist that believes literally in the earth being 4000 years old and the entire story of genesis....be affected by that in a very specific pursuit of fluid dynamics ( say figuring out best K factors in CFD modelling conditions)? There is no intersection in that case...the logical conflicts do not come into play. Yes he may have severe issues expanding his science to modelling of a historical earth...but that does not relate to him being a good scientist in his specific original study. Plenty of scientists also suffer a variety of other bias problems (unrelated to religion) when expanding the scope of their findings/analysis....it doesn't mean they are bad scientists. If they choose to go the allegorical path, its mitigated from the get go since one at that point looks upon religion as really a historical work that produces defined and absolute morality while being unable to explain why the godhead unveiled it as such (if a godhead needed in the explanation) but realising/understanding that the inability of answering the why is part of the faith in absoluteness of the divine/unknown in the first place. Again I don't see it being naturally antithetical to the scientific process.
Einstein after all quite famously kept intrinsically believing in a cosmological constant for the longest time (because of his bias against an expanding universe and thus the big bang model). He later admitted it was his biggest mistake, but did that make him a bad scientist during the earlier phase?