I’m engaged in battle again this next week, on 7 February, on the University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus. This one is going to be very different than that last one, though; the other side isn’t some ignorant wacko, but will be Loyal Rue, a Templeton award winner, and someone who has a rather more nuanced (I’m tempted to say “fluffy”) vision of religion. I suspect that it will be much, much less antagonistic, and more of an open discussion.
The questions we’ll be
debating discussing are:
Are the religious and scientific worldviews (or epistemologies) antithetical to one another?
Are the processes of scientific thought antithetical to the processes of religious thought?
Are religion and science both useful in the search for truth and meaning?
Do you think that science can inform/confirm/suggest religious “truths” or vice versa?
Is philosophy more like a science or more like religion?
My answers will be yes, yes, no, no, neither (Hey! I’m done! Boy, that’s going to be a short debate.), but I think I’ll probably have to spend more time defining what I mean by those answers and how I interpret religion and science, and that’s where Dr Rue and I will probably slide right past each other. We’ve been corresponding a bit and we may also get into the issue of teleology and Kauffman’s recent work (about which I have very mixed feelings).
It should be fun as long as you don’t come expecting beat-downs and knife fights — come to think and argue, instead.