Din-Bilim İlişkisi ve Çatışmanın Araçsallığı
The Relation Between Religion and Science and Instrumentality of Conflict
Yazar: Coşkun, Cüneyt
Dergi: Bilimname, Vol. 2019 No. 37, 2019
Anahtar kelimeler: Philosophy of Religion,Religion,Science,Conflict,Instrumentation ; Din,Bilim,Çatışma,Araçsallık,Din Felsefesi,Araçsallık

Düşünce tarihinin en çetrefilli problemlerinden biri, din-bilim ilişkisidir. Bu ilişkinin özellikle klasik sekülarizmin inşasında önemli bir tartışma konusu olduğu ve bu tartışmaların yine sekülarizm lehine sonuçlandığı vakıadır. Özellikle beşerin tarihsel dönüm noktalarını, insanın entelektüel gelişimine endeksli büyü, din ve bilimden oluşan bir evrimsel silsile üzerinden değerlendiren etnolojik, antropolojik ve analojik bağlamlı evrimci teoriler, bu tartışmaya ciddi bir arka plan oluşturmuştur. Her iki kavramın ontolojik, epistemolojik ve metodolojik farklılıkları, din ve bilim ilişkisinin mutlak uyuşmazlığı için ana argümanlar olarak kabul edilmiştir. Çatışma tezinin sonuçları da bu perspektifin ürünüdür. Bu sonuçları en verimli şekilde kullananlar ise kuşkusuz, iktidar ve onun kurumları olmuştur. Bir başka ifadeyle çatışmanın iktidar için anlamı, kitleleri daha kolay yönetebilme ereğiyle uyumlu siyasi, ekonomik, toplumsal ve kültürel stratejilerle çekişmeyen ve çelişmeyen olaylar ve taraflar yaratmak için önemli bir aygıt olmasıyla doğrudan ilişkilidir. Bu makalenin amacı da bu iki olgunun hem ontolojik hem de epistemolojik içerikleri ve kaynakları dikkate alınarak, çatışma tezinin araçsallık, eklemlenme ve nihayetinde aldatmacaya dönüşme süreci, iktidar faktörü de göz ardı edilmeden, din ve bilim kavramlarının özgünlüğünden hareketle değerlendirmektir.

Culture is a historical accumulation of substance and meaning. This accumulation has a characteristic in the historical process with its continuity, factuality, dynamics and subject to change. Although it is possible to talk about community-specificity in culture, different experiences, experiences and achievements, it is inclusive with its being a human product, its determinism and its common phenomenon of humanity. It is a cognitive and mental integrity that encompasses every unit of human and human beings, from the purest folk tale to the most complicated mathematical theorem, mythology, magic, religious belief, political perception to artistic creativity. Religion and science, the two main dynamics of social structure, are the most important milestones of this unity.  These two elements, which are sub-parts of culture, have been the main problem of every study subject of social sciences. In particular, the relationship between these two elements was pushed into a complicated discussion by the cultural mentality that built the modern era. Both conceptual and factual contents of both elements have been deliberately dragged into the quagmire of conflict and conflict. The natural and scientific contents of the religion and science duo, which consist of coordination of definition, purpose and function, are distorted by the intervention of external factors. The psychic state of the human being founded on knowing and believing, the mind of the ideologue, theologian and scientists has been thrown into the world designs. The absolute rational attitude starting with the Enlightenment and the intellectual stance that provided the circulation of this attitude, shouted the triumph of science, applauded the religionlessness of religion in the public sphere, declared the quest for two truths which are right except for the difference of method. It is the case that this disease is an important subject of discussion, especially in the construction of classical secularism, and that these debates are still in favor of secularism. Evolutionary theories of ethnological, anthropological and analogical contexts, which evaluate the historical turning points of human beings, on an evolutionary line consisting of magic, religion and science, are indexed to the intellectual development of human beings. According to the evolutionist theories that dealt with such scientists as Hill Tout (1858-1944) and Franz Boas (1858-1942), in particular, in the ethnological, anthropological and analogical contexts developed by J. George Frazer (1854-1941), the emphasis on consensus or partnership is completely problematic. In this problem, the ontological, epistemological and methodological differences of both concepts are accepted as the main arguments for the absolute discrepancy of this relationship. The results of the conflict thesis are the product of this perspective. Conflict thesis has the characteristic of transforming the differences of opinion into chaos, reducing the beliefs or beliefs to absurdities and producing false truths. Conflict has evolved into a means by which the human being is preoccupied as a social element, evoked as a social element, which leads to a blurring of ideas. Therefore, it is an articulation to the relationship between religion and science. This articulation is not the natural color or part of the relationship in the context of the definition, purpose and function of the two concepts. It is also clear that the scam is patching. Because, firstly, the relationship is dealt with only in the triangle of science-faith and the other connections are in the shade. However, the connection of this relationship with political, social and cultural policies is so important that it cannot be ignored. Also, portraying the relationship directly in the mind with the metaphor of war is a contradiction in itself. It is obvious that the experiences and resources that show that there is a closeness between the two cases are deliberately pushed out of the thesis. The most problematic and dangerous side of the deception is not preparing the environment for a social structure that does not originate from competition, but dissolves the disputes that depend on the difference and contrast in its own structure, but draws on the conflict by articulating a conflict and pushing into a blurring. The most active way of using this group is undoubtedly the power and institutions. The meaning of this conflict for power is an important device that will create incidents and parties that do not contradict with the political, economic, social and cultural strategies that are compatible with the need to manage the masses more easily. The aim of this article is to consider the ontological and epistemological content and sources of these two phenomena, and the process of transformation of conflict thesis into instrumentality, articulation and ultimately deception, without considering the factor of power, the specificity of the concepts of religion and science.