Date: 12 Nov 92 00:57:35
Distribution: world
From: uunet!guinea!jb8285@nwnexus.wa.com (Jeffrey R. Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
Subject: Re: Contradiction with science

Ken Arromdee asked:

ka> Is it considered a mistake for a Baha'i to believe, in this case,
ka> what science says instead of what your founder says, when they
ka> contradict?  When one of your teachings conflicts with science, is
ka> it your teaching, or science, which has made the mistake?

In article <TOWFIQ.92Nov4215820@justice.UUCP>
sedisrj01@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:

> I understand Baha'u'llah's writings to say that religion and science
> must be in accord, not that one should dominate the other, to
> maintain a balance in society.  ...

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

ka> Unfortunately, that does not really answer the question.  What
ka> happens if the actual religion and science seem _not_ to be
ka> accord?

There isn't much room for contradiction between true religion and true
science.  The reason is that their respective domains of discussion
are almost entirely disjoint.

Science deals exclusively with measureable (or at least observable)
physical phenomena.  This forms the basis of the experimental method.
Since science is about physical phenomena, it is possible to repeat
the experiment, record independent observations and confirm or refute
the original results.

Religion deals almost exclusively with spiritual phenomena.  For
example, the existence of God, the progress of the soul, morality, the
nature and progressiveness of revelation, etc.  None of this is
amenable to repeatable, refutable experimentation.  Mention of
physical phenomena, if correctly understood, is an analogy or a symbol
to help us understand a spiritual teaching.

In general, in my opinion, there just isn't a possibility of
contradiction since there is no overlap.  It's like asking what to do
in case a contradiction is found between, say, linguistics and
biophysics.

Many people, however, have chosen to understand religious writings as
literal.  Instead of accepting that these are basically spiritual
teachings using analogic language, they insist that the writings to
which they claim to adhere be understood literally and exactly.  For
some obscure historical reason, this belief is called fundamentalism.
Obviously, this type of interpretation will lead to many seeming
contradictions with the results of scientific discovery.

ka> It's not an answer to point out that the writings say they must be
ka> in accord, for that's not the question; almost all religions say
ka> they must be in accord with science.  The question is: if it seems
ka> not to be in accord, _who_has_made_the_mistake_?

Most religions do NOT say that they are in accord in science (or even
mention science as we understand it today).  The revelations of most
religions pre-date the formation of the scientific method and the
establishment of science as a purely empirical and rational
discipline.  One can only speculate on what the revealors of religious
truth would have said if the scientific method had been in place
during their life.
--
Jeffrey R. Brown                Internet: jeffrey.brown@medtronic.com
Medtronic, Inc. (T430)          UUCP:     uunet!medtron!jb8285
7000 Central Avenue N.E.        Voice:    1-612-574-4698
Minneapolis, MN 55432 USA       FAX:      1-612-574-6150