Recently I bought a dresser from IKEA. Truthfully, I use the term "recently" fairly liberally, as this was actually over a year ago at this point. But compared to my 5th birthday, this was incredibly recent.
The purchasing of the dresser was as easy as purchasing anything else, really. The assembly of the dresser....now that is a different matter entirely. The assembly of the dresser was a 3 day affair. Admittedly that was sprinkled in during soccer season so I was busy, but all in all it was entirely too complicated.
I am thankful for the instruction manual though. Without that small book (only small compared to Homer's Odyssey. Quite large compared to a Berenstein Bears book) I would have been fumbling around with that dresser to this day. I have much respect for instruction manuals.
Lately I have heard a lot about the whole science vs. religion debate. I know...this is ground breaking. Cutting edge even. Ok, not really. This is an incredibly old debate. In fact, it's been around since science became, well, science. Specifically, I would like to look at the suggestion that science should replace God.
For whatever reason, Facebook thought that I would like to donate to support as they put it, "a pro-atheism, pro-science film." It intrigued me, so I looked into what the makers of the film were trying to do. Essentially their conclusion is that belief in God, religion, etc. is an antiquated belief that should be replaced by science and logic.
This stance assumes two things: First, it assumes that the vast number of people in the world that hold religious beliefs lack logic and the ability to think logically and reason. I have a hard time with this one. This group of people will suggest that religion promotes hatred and racism, yet they will set themselves up as superior to the "religious nut-jobs" in nearly every way. They often hate religion in an almost fanatical way.
The second thing this stance assumes is that religion and science are actually opposing. They aren't. It really is that simple. Saying that science could ever replace God is like saying that the IKEA instruction manual can replace the dresser. This is not true. The point of science is not to be an end. Science is merely an explanation of what is happening.
Being able to explain what is happening, why it is happening, or how it is happening in no way rules out a God. It merely means that God operates in a way that is consistent. When we discovered the Law of Gravity, there wasn't an outcry that must not exist. Yet, that is what seems to be happening today.
God is the dresser, science is the instruction manual. I figured I would make that plain in case it wasn't apparent before. Both are important. However, without the dresser, there would be no use whatsoever for the instruction manual. The instruction manual cannot serve any of the functions of the dresser, but it is very good at explaining the dresser.
Religion breeds curiosity. It breeds compassion. It is true that terrible things have been done in the name of religion. Then again what hasn't had terrible things done in its name? Lots of atrocities have been done in the name of science.
Basically my point is that science and religion aren't at war. They are compatible. Actually they are better if they can be used together.
And it is my assumption that IKEA furniture probably came first...
No comments:
Post a Comment