Last Wednesday, I explored Mystery and Evidence, one articulation of the contrast between Religion and Science.Â Another topic stemming from Tim Crane’s NY Times Article which I found of interest was his claim:
… most people arenâ€™t deeply interested in science, even when they have the opportunity and the basic intellectual capacity to learn about it. Of course, educated people who know about science know roughly what Einstein, Newton and Darwin said. Many educated people accept the modern scientific view of the world and understand its main outlines. But this is not the same as being interested in the details of science, or being immersed in scientific thinking. …
I have suggested that while religious thinking is widespread in the world, scientific thinking is not. I donâ€™t think that this can be accounted for merely in terms of the ignorance or irrationality of human beings. Rather, it is because of the kind of intellectual, emotional and practical appeal that religion has for people, which is a very different appeal from the kind of appeal that science has.
Stephen Jay Gould once argued that religion and science are â€œnon-overlapping magisteria.â€ If he meant by this that religion makes no factual claims which can be refuted by empirical investigations, then he was wrong. But if he meant that religion and science are very different kinds of attempt to understand the world, then he was certainly right. — Tim Crane. Mystery and Evidence. NY Times. 9/5/2010.
Why do you agree/disagree with Crane’s assertion?