The Becker-Rose Cafe Series event with Gregory Sloan was very fascinating. The event began with a mini history lesson in regards to Galileo, who of course was forced to recant many of his scientific discoveries because they ran counter to the teachings and beliefs of the church. This set the stage for a more general discussion in regards to science vs. religion. As a non-religious person myself, I have always been bothered when people try to discredit scientific discovery and data on the grounds of the words in a religious text or the tenets of a religion. In fact, Gregory Sloan spent quite some time emphasizing the importance of data; science’s credibility is derived from data, and data, if collected in a non-biased and appropriate manner, is often indisputable.
However, I thought Gregory Sloan’s approach to the topic of science vs. religion was interesting and in all likelihood, the best approach. He stated that as human beings, we too often attempt to pit science and religion against one another, when in reality, they can absolutely coexist. Some very brilliant scientists on this earth are highly religious, and we shouldn’t view that as problematic. It is definitely plausible that religion provides one with a spiritual connection with an or some entities, and perhaps this can lead to a healthier existence. Science provides a structured and data-driven way to explain much of the phenomena on this planet and beyond, but I suppose certain questions are answered better through religion.
I’d imagine religion is merely an extension of the human condition. Often many have an innate desire to explain the inexplicable, particularly in the past, and while scientific reasoning is a valid method to investigate, it isn’t enough for many. Thus the belief in a higher being and the structure behind religion would prove to be essential and thus an integral part of society. I also think they can definitely coexist and when the controversy of whether religion directly opposes scientific advancements comes up, it is often on fallacious grounds since it is more likely greed, complacency, power and other factors that are against science, not necessarily religion.