Much of the supposed conflict between science and religion may well be imaginary, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any conflict.
How then should this conflict be characterised?
Gregory Bateson once noted the distinction in playful animals between the nip (playful) and the bite (serious). It’s clear that animals, including ourselves, can tell the difference, but how? How do they (we) make the transition between ‘this is play’ and ‘is this play?’?
Bateson famously summed up his observation of monkeys at the San Francisco zoo as follows:
“the playful nip denotes the bite, but it does not denote what would be denoted by the bite” (p.180).
This has a great deal to tell us about the science and religion debate. Continue reading “Nipping and Biting: Characterising the Conflict between Science and Religion”