Profs debate conflicts of science, religion
By Leanna Roy
News
Editor
May 18, 2010
Projects ranging from robots that throw basketballs to Lego pinball machines were featured at the family friendly Science Rendezvous last weekend. The UWindsor hosted event was forced inside the confines of the Winclare room in Vanier Hall due to rain, but the show went on.
The main event featured four professors across Ontario who argued to prove whether a conflict exists between science and religion.
Paul Basset, president of Ontario Humanists Association defended science alongside the dean of graduate studies, Lois Smedick to prove that there is indeed a conflict. On the opposite end, Stanley Cunningham, Professor Emeritus and a past-Head of the Department of Communications Studies at the University of Windsor and Stuart Selby, a member of the University of Windsor’s Department of Philosophy argued that there is no conflict between science and religion.
At the beginning of the debate, the moderator asked the participating audience what their take on the matter was and the outcome of the poll was an even split.
Basset began his opening statement with the belief that religion always has and always will continue to conflict with one another.
“Historically, religion provides us with knowledge that stumps science," stated Basset, adding that when science explains phenomenons previously explained by religion, a conflict arises.
Selby countered by explaining that the two are separate entities rather than rivals that separately answer life's big question. Because a search for meaning is universal, science and religion have the potential to coexist without conflict.
“Religion provides answers about love and morality that cannot be answered by science,” stated Selby.
Basset maintained his belief that “to say solutions are beyond human understanding is to stifle scientific advancements,” a conflict that he believes will exists regardless of meaning provided through religious experience.
This passivity to a power beyond our reach is at the heart of many religious concepts.
An example given by Bassett expanded this notion. The Jehovah's Witness ethics believe that worshipping God properly means living life as he had intended. Because it's practitioners must passively accept fate, blood transfusions are prohibited thus refusing the application of science.
Basset ended his closing statement claiming that his team had won the argument before it began.
"So you think," defended Cunningham and added that religion has broadened and advanced in history as science has.
"How is it that many scientists are also religious?" asked Cunningham. He argued the broadness of religion allows room scientific advancements.
The crowd remained divided after a second poll was taken and the results were slightly in favor that a conflict does exist between the two. |
