This passed my mind today as I was walking by my fellow Christian students, who as I described before, their sole job is to ‘advertise’ their religion in many different creative ways. Or, if you live in US, you may have gotten that knock on the door just to be asked “Have you found Jesus?”
I assume that all these guys think that their religion holds ‘the Truth’. Now, what I fail to see is, why on earth do they think that the truth needs advertisement?! I mean, if I am a sane person with enough logic and understanding within me, I would be able to see the truth instantly, wouldn’t I?
No scientist ever thinks so, even when they are sure they have reached a very good theory. Just imagine in 1925 seeing Einstein in an advertisement raising funds for support of his theory! Even now that science is under attack by religion, I don’t seem to see any advertisements to support, say, Evolution, but quite the reverse in fact, I see a lot from religion side. (maybe I’ve missed some from the former side, if anyone has seen it illuminate me please.)
Back and forth, Religions collide. People turn from one to the other, but none of them achieves the final victory, at least not the final ideological victory. And in the midst of all this, we have religious Pluralism, which accepts all religions as true.
I believe there is a reason for this, and that reason is the Idealistic nature of religious ideas. Which has a close relation with religion being subjective: It is only in peoples’ heads! But the only ‘art’ here is that it can presents itself as objective and real. Social mass delusions and teaching these nonsense to children who do not have the intellectual capacity of understanding its flaws doesn’t help either.
What you will never find, is a scientist that ‘can’ accept two opposite theories as true.* Which is objective and realistic. So: Let’s add this to the conflict of science and religion, Idealism v. Realism.
* Sam Harris talked briefly about Thomas Kuhn in his recent video ‘Ask Sam Harris Anything #2‘. My statement here is the deadly problem of Kuhn’s methodology in philosophy of science. I might write something about this issue and Harris’s point, because however I agree with his conclusion, I think it’s much more complicated.