“the 'warfare model' is a very recent (and ill-researched) characterisation of the relationships between science and religion”
- Actually, the question of to what extent science and religion may be incompatible is not one that takes up most of the book, although the subtitle may give that impression. My apologies if so. It is difficult to come up with titles, subtitles (and even book descriptions) that are both concise and tightly reflective of all the content of a book. Page 42 of the book goes into this topic specifically. Otherwise the general way that aspect is involved is in considering the context of the education of children: there we put over the view of the British and American Humanistic Associations that teaching creationism in schools as something that is equally valid to evolution is a practice that should not be supported. That a good understanding of evolution is key to grasping biology. See especially pages 33 and 40 of the book for that.
“Religion and science, in my own experience, have never been in conflict. I see science as a way of understanding the profound beauty and wonder of the cosmos, something that actually nourishes my spirituality.”
- As I noted, only page 42 of the book specifically focuses on the issues of this possible conflict, and even then rather even handedly (despite what I have just said above). It notes: “ …simply being religious does not mean holding beliefs that actively go against scientific evidence…”. However, we do make the point on page 33 that: “Religious thinking does not foster the kind of inquiring minds that go out and make new discoveries or that come up with scientific breakthroughs.”
“humans have a deep need to feel connected with the greater mystery and wonder of the universe. At its best, religion can do that. Cerrtainly, that is what authentic spirituality, in my mind, is about. “
- I agree that we lovely humans do seem to have that need. Possibly for evolutionary reasons, as some researchers suggest. However, that need does not mean there IS a god, and it does not mean that the negative aspects of religions are excused. As to Religion providing that connection to wonder, here is Roy Speckhardt of the AHA to give you his view, which I just asked him to do:
“My take on ‘the good’ that religion does, isn't that it doesn't exist - religion and churches, and especially religious people, do good. One example of that is the sense of awe and wonder and disconnectedness it can provide. But as much as religion can be a force for good, and that could be so much better without the religion part.
While churches raise billions for charity, they raise billions more that go to lining the pockets of a huge network of clergy and bureaucrats. While religious spiritualism provides awe and mystery, its one based on unproven, unlikely stories, as compared to the awe and mystery of science and cosmology which is based on the best of what humanity has come to know through reason and analysis. While religion provides contentedness, it's a contentedness that's severely limited by the tribal boundary of their particular faith - Hindus may be well connected to Hindus, but not to Mormons. Humanism offers better solutions to these issues, and seeks to connect all of humanity and remove the us vs them tribalism of religions.”
I agree with that and it was such ideas that inspired us to work on the Goodbye God illustrated book. We hope the book can contribute towards that, in it’s own way.
I’m not sure what I can say about the third comment, as it does not seem to relate to anything in the actual book. Please have a look at the book itself before you judge it, folks. Oh, and the Goodbye God book just came out last month actually, this month in the US - not 6 months ago.