False Dichotomy: Science vs. Religion
You are told to pick a side. But the sides were drawn by people who benefit from the fight.
Science asks "how does this work?" Religion, in its contemplative form, asks "what does this mean?" These are different questions. A physicist describing gravity and a monk describing awe at the night sky are not in competition — they are talking about different dimensions of the same experience. The idea that you must choose one and reject the other is a manufactured conflict, and it serves specific interests on both sides.
Religious institutions benefit from framing science as an enemy because it positions doubt as betrayal. Militant atheists benefit from framing religion as pure ignorance because it positions their worldview as the only rational option. Both sides need the war to continue. Both sides need you to believe the other is dangerous. And while you pick your team, the actual questions — about meaning, about ethics, about what kind of society we want — go unexamined because they do not fit neatly into either camp.
The most interesting thinkers in history refused this binary. They held scientific rigour and spiritual inquiry together without contradiction. The demand that you choose is not a sign of intellectual honesty. It is a sign that someone wants your loyalty more than your understanding.
References
- Karen Armstrong — A History of God (1993)
- Sam Harris — The End of Faith (2004)