Here’s a link to a quick and interesting Q&A at The Boston Globe with Philosopher of Science Dr. Robert McCauley. He briefly chats on why religion is more intuitive than science for the human mind.
My favorite quote from the article is when he speaks to the idea of science and religion warring or being compared to one another, and says it is like “comparing apples and sofas.” Indeed.
Exactly Barb. They are not comparable in any way which is why the either/or mentality of regarding them makes no sense to me. So do you disagree with his sentiment that religious thinking is more intuitive than the Scientific method? You bring up great points too about culture’s influence on how people think. I wonder if he touches on that in his book.
Hum….. I see lots of flaws in this theory.
Scientific Methods have 4 steps.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
In religion I do not see much if any of Step 4. Most of the “predictions” are suppositions, not true experimental tests.
I do not see a method of comparing the two, probably, lack of knowledge on my part. So comparing “Apple to Sofa” is correct.
So how can you compare scientific to non-scientific thinking? Creative scientific thinking can be diminished if your mind is not trained. Creative non-scientific thinking can also be diminished. Look at the current Chinese culture and the Old Communist cultures. One eliminated creative scientific thinking and the other eliminated non-scientific religious thinking.
What is standard in a society plays a part in the the thought process of it citizens.