A widely used phrase like “conflict (or no conflict) between science and religion” is meaningless absent details about what science and whose religion.
For example, if someone, using advanced neuroscience, can exquisitely target and destroy brain areas so that people cannot form concepts that might include dissent from the government – and the Catholic Church opposes it? Is that a “conflict between science and religion”?
What if representatives of another religion come along and say, “Yes, this is wonderful, now there will be no more infidels and no more disobedience to the great prophet. It fits our theology because we don’t believe in free will anyway.” So that is “no conflict between science and religion”?
Must be. That’s pretty much how the debate on using stem cells from abandoned embryos has been understood.
In general, in my experience, “conflict between science and religion” almost always amounts to “conflict between Darwinists (whatever their advertised piety) and anyone who knows that there is derisorily little evidence for Darwinism and talks about it.”
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
From Uncommon Descent: