Galileo and the Holy Inquisition
Many (most?) scientists believe religions to be irrational, obscurantist and
anti-scientific The problem goes back to Galileo, who discovered that the earth goes
round the sun, rather than vice-versa as stated in the Bible. When he publicised his
findings he was arrested by the church on a charge of heresy and threatened
with torture and burning
at the stake unless he withdrew them. He offered the chance for his accusers to
confirm his findings by observation through his telescope. They refused - if the facts
were contrary to theology then the facts must be wrong.
The burning times
During the centuries when the church held political power, numerous other investigators of
the natural world were tortured to death or burnt at the stake for their curiosity. The
early pioneers of biochemistry and pharmacology paid a heavy price. Anyone who was adept
at herbal healing (herbology or phytopharmacology) was particularly likely to attract the
attention of the church. Successful practitioners were in league with the the devil. In
most rural communities throughout Europe such expertise was in the possession of elderly
women, who were persecuted
mercilessly by the Inquisition and other ecclesiatical authorities. These witchhunts
continued until the eventual triumph of reason over obscurantism during the late
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries (a period known as the Enlightenment).
The Current Battle between Theology and Evolution
Of more immediate interest to 21st century scientists is the ongoing battle between
the scientific supporters of evolution (Darwinism) and
geophysics, and the theological supporters of creationism
and a 'young earth'.
The scientists believe that the world came into existence hundreds of millions of years
ago. In the beginning lifeforms were simple, such as bacteria. But by processes of
competition and selection more elaborate organisms evolved leading to complex multicelled
lifeforms such as mammals, birds, flowering plants and ourselves. To an evolutionist a
species is not something that is defined or exists 'from its own side'. The
characteristics of each species are constantly changing, and if we were to look back
through the fossil records to try to decide where one species ended and its successor
began we would ultimately be faced with an arbitrary act of human judgement, with no
'authoritative' specification to refer to.
Creationists, in contrast, believe that the world and all its species were created as
described in Genesis during six days of a single week in or around 4004 BC . The species
were defined once-and-for-all according to fixed blueprints and cannot change. This
implies that the entire geological record of changing
ancestral forms is a sham. According to the creationists, Satan planted fossils to to deceive us. Similarly the technology of DNA
sequencing, which shows a 98% correspondence between chimpanzees and humans, is a fraud
manipulated by a conspiracy of atheistic scientists.
Young earth
The 'young-earth'
viewpoint is similar to creationism. The theological motivation is identical - to
defend Biblical chronology by proving that the world is only a few thousand years old. The
challenge facing the 'young-earthers' is that all dating mechanisms which use the decay of
naturally radioactive atoms in minerals agree that many of the earth's rocks were formed
hundreds of millions of years ago. To get round this objection the 'young earthers'
have either to invoke more conspiracy theories, or postulate that somehow the rate of
radioactive decay was very much faster on the early earth than it it now.
The conspiracy theory has problems in that isotope dating methods are used by
geologists throughout the world, so the number of people deliberately faking results and
keeping quiet about it would have to be huge. The fast early decay theory, apart from
having no plausible basis, implies that the Garden of Eden must have had an intensely high
background radioactivity. Adam and Eve would have been irradiated to such an extent that
they would probably have been unable to produce any progeny at all - let alone the whole
of the human race.
At present the creationist/young earth view is winning within the US educational system,
as more and more boards of education outlaw the teaching of evolution. The creationists'
victory is being won not by the strength of their arguments, but by imposition of
censorship. It is likely that soon many young Americans will simply never come into
contact with the concepts of evolution either in their lessons or libraries. In Kansas,
where the majority of people believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, popular
pressure has resulted in the removal from the school syllabus, not only of evolution, but
also anything at all about Darwin, the big bang and even tectonic plates! (Daily
Telegraph, July 14th 2000, page 19). It is fortunate that the good citizens of Kansas
have not been requested for their opinions about the shape of the earth as well as its
origin, or no doubt globes would be banned from geography classes.
Kansas may appear to be an extreme case, being a predominantly agricultural state with
relatively little scientific or technological infrastructure. But the phenomenon of
creationist censorship is spreading to other US states and other English-speaking
countries (though not apparently within continental Europe) and is not just confined to
rural backwaters. Militant creationism will no doubt become a growing issue as the
patriarchal religions continue to turn away from rationalism, and become ever more
fanatically fundamentalist.
But to return to the original question. What's the point of this website? Hasn't religion
always been anti-scientific? Is there any possible compromise?
The combination of bad relations throughout history and the current activities of
fundamentalists have convinced many scientists that all religion is intrinsically
irrational and anti-scientific. Mention religion and they reach for Occams' chainsaw.
This is a Western problem - Buddhist cultures don't carry this sort of baggage.
The point of this website is that the struggle between science and religion is not
inevitable. It's a culturally conditioned view resulting from an ongoing 350 year old feud
in Europe and America. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way and other cultures don't
carry this baggage.
So how is Buddhism different from obscurantism? Buddhism could be described as a religion,
but it could equally well be described as a philosophy or a technology of the mind. It
isn't dogmatic or intrinsically paranoid. It doesn't expect you to believe six impossible
things before breakfast. The refreshing thing about Buddhism is that in many respects it
is an empirical methodology and a
liberal tradition of free enquiry. It's not so much a set of things to believe as a
set of things to do. As the Buddha told his students "Don't believe anything I say
just because I said it - try it out for yourselves". Which really is the only way
that anyone learns anything.
Buddhist Teachings
on the mind, personal relationships, meditation and the spiritual path.
Arguments against Buddhism - the best way to
understand the strengths of a philosophy is to attempt to refute it!
RATIONAL
BUDDHISM
If we regard Buddhism as a combination of a philosophy, psychology and religion, then how
much mileage can we get from the first two aspects before we have to start invoking
religious faith?
Christian
versus Buddhist worldviews |
