Anthropology is starting to solve age-old philosophical questions. These questions were never going to be solved by philosophers, so I suppose it's just as well. Unfortunately, this is like saying "the true enemy of science isn't religion -- it's the common facets of many religions." Doesn't mean anything.Since I have wearied of the Richard Dawkins school of religion-bashing, in which belief is equated with dim-wittedness, I can only applaud de Waal's approach, as when he writes, "The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms ... . The true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma."
I'd argue that it does mean something. You are absolutely right that those are common facets of many religions, but as you say, they are facets and only that. Don't forget that a lot of religions also encourage questioning and searching for meaning, which in the past lead to many scientific advances that we now take for granted. There are always fundamentalists of course, but then again, there are scientists that get pretty dogmatic too. They might be shitty scientists, but I'd say that those that profess to be adherents of a particular religion and don't allow for anything outside of their religious tradition to be true are also shittily practicing their religion. Why would an all-powerful being or pantheon of beings be restricted by what's written in a text or passed down through humans? What bothers me in the science vs. religion debate is that people tend to overlook the fact that they are for very different purposes. Science looks for objective truths, if it can be said that science seeks truth. I prefer to think that science looks to eliminate inaccuracy and falsehood, which I don't think is the same as seeking truth. Religion on the other hand, tends to seek Truth, which is an entirely subjective concept. I think people get their truths confused and see opposition when there is no real basis for it. The science vs. religion argument always reminds me of Robert Jastrow: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." God and the Astronomers (1978), p. 116; (p. 107 in 1992 edition)
And hindered many others.
Not in remotely the same way. Dogma as it is defined is anathema to real scientist. Any scientists who are dogmatic to the point of obstructing science (of which there have been some) are considered fringe/"crackpots" by actual scientists.
To follow definition here as well -- in many cases what you have described is actually exactly what the acolyte of a religion is supposed to do. Science and religion certainly aren't opposites. They don't have anything to do with each other and as far as I'm concerned shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence if possible.Don't forget that a lot of religions also encourage questioning and searching for meaning, which in the past lead to many scientific advances that we now take for granted.
There are always fundamentalists of course, but then again, there are scientists that get pretty dogmatic too.
I'd say that those that profess to be adherents of a particular religion and don't allow for anything outside of their religious tradition to be true are also shittily practicing their religion.
I get tired of it. Inevitably each is used to provide a counterpoint to the other, and it's both pointless and misleading. Religion is a belief system and science is the pursuit of knowledge -- and the misconception that they need overlap has caused a fair few of the world's problems over the years.