What Do Science And Religion Have In Common In Dividing A Nation?
By Mike Edwards
Uncivil discussions between those who have science differences seems to becoming more the norm. Those with religion or God differences are no better though less hostile. Disagreements often lead to calling one anti-science or heretical. Successful relationships only happen by handling disagreements in a positive manner so solutions can be agreed upon. Dictators or authoritarians seek to control different opinions. Demonizing different views is tearing apart our nation!
An attitude of “certainty” can destroy a Nation!
Truth is less certain than let on. Truth is a pursuit! Supposed scientific truth is often updated. Supposed biblical truth, because interpretation is required, is not agreed upon by sincere believers in God. My biggest regret when younger was acting certain than open-minded. Good luck having a good marriage if assuming you are right when disagreeing with your partner. Universal immoralities are obvious (murder, sexual abuse), but some truth can be found in opposing views concerning climate concerns, immigration, pandemic responses, etc.
Why do we claim certainty?
Certainty than uncertainty comforts individuals psychologically. Those in Authority don’t want to be seen as unknowing. Many religious and scientific folks hide behind their interpretation of a Book or data. But contrary biblical interpretations exist for many moral issues and science data is often updated. It doesn’t matter if you believe your opinion is best for all. You may be wrong!
An attitude of certainty hinders the democratic process and could prevent the most caring decision for all involved. It is hard to know one’s internal motives, but thwarting diverse opinions is self-serving, allowing one to remain in control. Labeling others who disagree as conspiracists or heretics is revealing. Freedom of expression is essential in the pursuit of truth!
How have we pursued scientific truth during the Pandemic?
The bedrock of science use to be considering hypotheses in an attempt to explain a phenomenon in the natural world. It is an educated guess based on the information we have currently have and could change if we get new information in the future. Drugs are often approved initially, only to be pulled from the shelves later after causing death. Dr. Tony Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins, and Pfizer, who have led the U.S response to the pandemic, have failed to abide by what most agree used to be the course of action in pursuing scientific truths:
- Fauci Claims His Critics Aren’t Just Attacking Him, But ‘Science’ Itself (VIDEO) (clashdaily.com). No one is attacking Fauci physically but criticizing his opinions
- Email: Collins Asked Fauci To Attack ‘Fringe’ Harvard, Stanford, Oxford Epidemiologists — Citizens Journal. Shame on a vocal Christian referring to these Doctors as “fringe”
- Pfizer’s request to release clinical trial data in 75 years was overruled by the courts. Why didn’t Pfizer present data immediately to prove Covid shots worked as reported to the public?
Why can’t we agree to openly pursue the most caring decision for all involved?
Immigration laws can be discussed as to what are the most caring for the greater good. It would be wonderful if all children without loving parents could be adopted into your home. It that best for your family? Regarding climate changes, what is best for those who have energy and for those nations who need life saving energy from more fortunate countries? In responding to the pandemic, we must be able to ask and discuss what are the benefits and risks for individuals and society as a whole regarding Covid shots, lockdowns, masks, etc.
- We can have open discussions and avoid demanding “supposed truths”
- We must learn to respond not react over our differences
- We can seek areas to agree first
- We can seek to understand before being understood
- We must stop demonizing by moralizing
- We must handle differences with physical and verbal civility
- We must stop claiming we have the corner on what is biblical truth
- We must stop canceling others’ opinions when it comes to pursuing scientific truths
I left the institutional church, but not God, because others wouldn’t engage in non-dogmatic conversations. I didn’t wish to be divisive to those seeking God. Few will engage in political discussions as a way to understand one another’s point of view. We aren’t always certain how to best love, but we must reach solutions by civil and democratic means. If one is close-minded denying your freedom to come to your own conclusions, sometimes we must counteract assertively. We must discuss in the current pandemic the benefits and risks of the Covid shots. We must be able to debate climate, immigration laws, and what a loving God would truly think about gays, women roles, and other matters that impact millions of lives.
Mike Edwards has been writing for Done with Religion for some time and has been a great addition to the site. Mike also has his own site where he writes that can be found at What God May Really Be Like He can be contacted by email at: email@example.com