Science Discredits Religion: A Critique
Richard Dawkins, an incredible biologist and very active member of the camp that a God does not exist, has laid out his argument on why he believes this is so. Mr. Dawkins seeks proof through the Independence View, which is the thought that science and religion are not in conflict. He also writes on how the Independence View fails to establish religion as the sole authority on human meaning and value. Throughout the paper I will be using both terms, Catholicism and Christianity because they are based on the same scripture and very slightly differ, though Dawkins did seem to direct his words to the Catholics.
Dawkins begins his paper by addressing the Pope’s views on evolution by quoting S. J. Gould speaking on said views saying, “Science and religion are not in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domain.” Gould believes this belief is based on a standard of 1“Nonoverlapping Magisteria.” This is basically the idea that science covers the empirical universe, what is it (fact) and why does it work that way (theory), whilst religion nets the questions of moral meaning and value.
At this juncture, he uses scripture as a reference to Christian decision making and values. He wrote, “In practice no civilized person uses scriptures as ultimate authority for moral reasoning. Instead, we pick and choose nice bits of scripture and ignore the nasty bits.” At first glance, this is definitely a point that has seemed to trounce the idea of religion being the moral compass. Seeing as you don’t use all of it in daily life you must not believe all of it to be true. However, one could argue that the bible was first scribed in a much different time, where culture norms were different and the actions spoke about were acceptable. Yes, it is contradictory to say you live to carry out the word of your God, then to live everyday knowing people out there that have committed adultery and not stoning...