The Way Forward is Through Science and Religion

Gerald Shroeder writes:Spinoza's ideal in which we might find our way to perfection by rational processes alone is an age old dream. The nature of the human psyche makes it an unrealistic goal. Both science and religion acting alone have produced irrational and horrific behaviour. Like rain in the growth of a tree, the blessing of insight from above must mesh with the roots of material reality from below. Neither by itself can achieve the goal of peace on earth and goodwill toward all.

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a theocracy that has advanced the cause of peace and neither has the cause of peace been advanced by a government based on the idea that the only truth that exists is what can be determined scientifically.

Direct democracySwitzerland features a system of government not seen at the national level any other place on Earth: direct democracy, sometimes called half-direct democracy (this could, or could not be correct as theoretically, one could state that the people have full power over the law). Referenda on the most important laws have been used since the 1848 constitution.Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If he is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority whether to accept or reject the law.Also, any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the constitution. For such an amendment initiative to be organised, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months. Such a popular initiative may be formulated as a general proposal or - much more often - be put forward as a precise new text whose wording can no longer be changed by parliament and the government. After a successful vote gathering, the federal council may create a counterproposal to the proposed amendment and put it to vote on the same day. Such counterproposals are usually a compromise between the status quo and the wording of the initiative. Voters will again decide in a national vote whether to accept the initiative amendment, the counterproposal put forward by the government or both. If both are accepted, one has to additionally signal a preference. Initiatives have to be accepted by a double majority of both the popular votes and a majority of the states.

The basis of this forum is the debate between evolution and a literal reading of the Bible.

Gary writes: I don't think science and religion can work together. Religion continuously stands in the way of science, both in terms of explaining natural phenomena and in the application of useful scientifically-grounded knowledge. Instead of thinking things through in a rational manner and changing beliefs to fit the evidence, many religions demand that their followers stick relentlessly to the teachings of ancient people who lacked scientific knowledge, or to flawed interpretations of those teachings, as is seen with creationism in the United States. It would be nice if the two could work together, but science and religion oppose each other so strongly that I don't see how it is possible.

I don't know what percentage of Christians would call themselves literalists.

Perhaps we should ask which nation has advanced the cause of peace more than any other in modern times and see what its attributes are that may help to explain such behavior?

Note: this is not intended as any kind of endorsement of USSR.