Why do some non-theists and theists alike believe the opposite of god (s) is science?
So I’ve been reading and re-reading all the “I like god, go to hell’/’ I don’t need god, go to hell” threads (don’t ask me why I’d want the bleh experience) and wondering why so many people, theists and non-theists alike, posit that god and science are oppositional (not all people say this, yes I know).
Something like “I believe in god because science can’t explain xyz” or “science has provided answers for many of the questions people created god for”...It seems to me that both of these statements can be true. Religion today (especially in differently developed nations) has come to mean something else to people (I presume) than what it used to mean back in the day (say centuries ago) since we do have many explanations for what people used to think are phenomena for their religious leaders to ponder about. Nonetheless, people are still religious (despite what some have claimed aka that as a nation gets more developed and science provides more answers, people will become less religious) because there’s more to what religion does for people than explanations. I don’t think it was ever about explanations though, to our ancestors, there was much to explain. As a sociologist, I can go on and on about what the institution of religion or the ‘personal relationship with god’ provides for people rather than explanations, but I’ll spare you.
I do get that there are some topics that religion and science ‘fight over’, like evolution, but even that is wrongfully so since evolution describes how we evolve and people who don’t believe in evolution are basically describing how we began (so I don’t see the two threads as relevant to one another, but that’s just me). Even on topics like abortion where some people say the baby has a soul cause that’s how it was written in whatever book they hold holy, etc. vs the people who are apparently using science to ‘prove’ that it’s just a bunch of cells at the moment of abortion – I don’t see how either statement negates the other, necessarily (regardless of what I, myself, believe) because the issue, ultimately, comes down to whether abortion is murder and how we feel about murder (or to use a less charged word, expelling something).
I’ve been trying to figure out all the arguments (“oh don’t think i’m stupid ‘cause I believe in god; no, don’t tell me I’m not persecuted ‘cause I’m an atheist”) and none of the arguments, really, are about the issue at hand but about how people navigate their worlds, I guess. A lot of the arguments, I find, are problematic because they’re not starting from the same point which is what I always say when someone religious tries to tell me something homophobic and I explain that I can’t discuss sexuality if I don’t believe in god and they do because, from the beginning, we aren’t starting in the same corner of the field (the field being how we explain things to ourselves).
Anyway, to get to my actual point…science, imo, isn’t the opposite of god…science is a good field, sure, gives us many answers, many people (theists and non-theists alike) don’t get half of what science has given us or what the details are…it’s nothing to hold up in our world because it’s laced with its own unsavory history and biases just like religion…god is something some people feel they know and his supposed words explain things to them but it’s often things that science isn’t interested in answering…science doesn’t concern itself with the philosophical so much, because that’s not its point…
So why the opposition? It is true that many scientists are atheists/agnostics and they sometimes credit science for why they became so (if they were religious) but that only makes sense if they were trying to look for answers to questions that science can and should answer rather than other questions that no one can answer. Why do some theists think that they can feel superior to non-theists who like science because ‘science doesn’t have all the answers’? Many of us into science know science doesn’t have all the answers nor do we posit that it, as a field, is the answer to the ‘is there or isn’t there?’ question about god or whether religion is necessary.
I’m not deluded enough to think there will be no flaming on here but please, keep to a minimum. Also, I’m going to sleep for now, for an hour, but I’ll be back to discuss more, at some point.