181. Peter Bannister of the American Church in Paris Sees Hope For Science and Religion Dialog (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Click here to read more ...

[anonymous]

Peter Bannister of the American Church in Paris Sees Hope For Science and Religion Dialog

I will read the transcript and post my comments


as soon as I stop rotf lmao.



I don't think the problem is that we need a dialog between religion and science. The problem is that science needs a dialog with science. Science today is in the sorry situation where scientists are being persecuted not by religion but by other scientists for the heresy of disagreeing with "settled" science. Whether it is in climate change (pun intended) or darwinism - scientists need to dialog with each other much more than they need to dialog with religion. Anything unorthodox in science is "psuedoscience". At the same time, the news is full of reports of rampant scientific fraud and incompetence. Compared to scientists, most religions are fair, open minded, and liberal.

[David Bailey]

I thought the idea that Christianity is wedded to materialism was rather clever! I remember back to the time when I was on the verge of dropping my Christian belief, being asked to read "Who Moved the Stone" - a supposedly forensic-style 'proof' that Jesus must have died and been resurrected.

That daft book helped to finish Christianity for me!

I also noted the fact that he recognised that some of Dawkins' rhetoric comes from his revulsion at the fundamentalist movement in the US (and perhaps some of the other less savoury forms of Christianity around the world). I would give Dawkins that much credit.

That said, I would have thought that if a new, non-dogmatic religion is possible, it would be more likely to start as a new religion. The problem with stripping dogma out of Christianity, is that people laugh and see the result as an empty vessel.

David

[David R]

What amazes me is how Dawkins is still being cited. He is clearly an imbecile. Why people continue to persue him is beyond the level of my understanding.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David R

What amazes me is how Dawkins is still being cited. He is clearly an imbecile.

Now you've said he is schizophrenic and an imbecile. Why do you think so? You didn't respond to my question in the other thread.

~~ Paul

[Enrique Vargas]

don't see it in iTunes :-(

[Michael Larkin]

Alex's questions:

1. Is modern Christianity wed to materialism in a way we aren't normally aware of, leading to a culture war between science and religion?

2. If our religion is whatever our ultimate concern is, to what extent have atheism and science become religions, and how does that feed into the culture war?

Nice to have had a fellow Brit on the show--his Web site looks interesting.

I'm not sure I quite got what science being wed to religion meant in the context of the discussion. The thing that came into my mind was more about their divorce (as Sheldrake has mentioned) when they decided to carve things up between them a few centuries back.

It seems to me that Bannister is seeking to catalyse a reconciliation--by providing a forum, or the means, for productive dialogue. I like very much the idea of checking out one's prejudices at the door, which is something I try to do myself; but all over the place, Skeptiko included, the estranged pair argue and get bitchy, forgetting that underneath, they're both passionate about what concerns them: and they both want the truth.

The thing is, perhaps they ought to consider the possibility that apprehending the truth involves hierogamy--a sacred union of opposites or complementaries. A yin-yang wholeness that honours both the spiritual and the analytical. In extremis, I think that spirit without analysis may lead to gullibility; analysis without spirit, to philosophical nihilism.

[Michael Larkin]

Originally Posted by Enrique Vargas

don't see it in iTunes :-(

Enrique: do you mean you haven't been able to listen to the podcast? It would be a great pity if you haven't, as Bannister is a fellow musicologist and probably shares some of your sensibilities. I'm sure people will try to help you out if they can.

[Enrique Vargas]

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

Enrique: do you mean you haven't been able to listen to the podcast? It would be a great pity if you haven't, as Bannister is a fellow musicologist and probably shares some of your sensibilities. I'm sure people will try to help you out if they can.

Hi, Michael,

I checked out iTunes store as well as tried to update Skeptiko podcast through "update" option, it seems that the podLooking forward to listening to it. :-)

[Michael Larkin]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

...I would have thought that if a new, non-dogmatic religion is possible, it would be more likely to start as a new religion. The problem with stripping dogma out of Christianity, is that people laugh and see the result as an empty vessel.David

IMO, the last thing we need is a new religion. We need a new synthesised approach that recognises the importance of both the analytical and the spiritual. There would be no room for dogma from either side. Dogma is incompatible with synthesis. It's a kind of anti-glue; like a charged particle, it repels its like.

Nancy Evans Bush's image of the clicking yin-yang symbol comes to mind; the two sides coming together and bouncing apart, constantly yapping rather than fusing into a synthesis.