Mar 16 2008
How Science and Religion Can Play Nicely Together (And Should!)
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design has been a hot topic for decades, and is still just as hot as ever. I tend to stay away from “fad” issues just because I feel they are distracting to the pursuit of real Truth (which is timeless). However, the nature of this debate is “science vs. religion”, which IS a common problem to man. I do not believe in “check your brain at the door” religion, Truth is always found where our hearts and minds meet together. So if you will indulge me, I would like to make a interject a few guidelines for how and why science and religion should play nicely together.
SCIENCE DOESN’T ANSWER “WHY”
Science is mechanical and mathematical in nature, it knows nothing of context or meaning. Science can tell me what chemicals are in a painting, or how it produces color, but not what the artist was trying to communicate or WHY they painted it. The Dali Lama wrote a great book on this concept called The Universe in a Single Atom, which covers many facets of reconciling science and religion, but makes a simple and powerful point: Most of the important questions in life are WHY, and science can’t answer them.
“For me, science is first and foremost an empirical discipline that provides humanity with a powerful access to understanding the nature of the physical and living world. It is essentially a mode of inquiry that gives us fantastically detailed knowledge of the empirical world and the underlying laws of nature, which we infer from the empirical data. Science proceeds by means of a very specific method that involves measurement, quantification, and intersubjective verification through repeatable experiments. This, at least, is the nature of scientific method as it exists within the current paradigm. Within this model, many aspects of human existence, including values, creativity, and spirituality, as well as deeper metaphysical questions, lie outside the scope of scientific inquiry.” – Dali Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom
…well said.
REASON AND SCIENCE ARE NOT THE SAME (BUT OFTEN GO TOGETHER)
Reason and science are different disciplines, both used for discovering and discerning truth. Science is about using strict empirical methodology of experimentation and documentation. For something to be found true in science, it must be able to be produced and reproduced in a documented experiment. The results, when found to be repeatable, are then scientifically “true”.
Reason is a different disciple. Reason is purely a logical disciple where we deduce or induct a conclusion based on evidence presented. Reason is often used in science as a scientist will use reasoning to produce a hypothesis, then use science to test a hypothesis. However, when reason cannot be tested, it remains outside the realm of science.
When looking at determining the beginnings of the Universe, or how life came to be, we may have some science to present us with clues but we are mostly dealing in the realm of reason. It is absurd for anyone to say they can scientifically prove how the world began, they can have good reasoning, but not scientific proof. This brings me to my next point…
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE
Intelligent design may be true, it may be reasonable, but it is not science. Since God won’t come down to a university and do a public demonstration, we can’t put it through the empirical process (but that would be cool). It is absurd to state that science proves God made the Universe, if science could prove that, then we would know as much as God does. However there is another equally absurd problem with this debate…
EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG AREN’T SCIENCE EITHER
Nope, it’s not. It may be true, it may be reasonable, but it is not science. We haven’t reproduced the “Big Bang”, or macro-evolution. Natural selection is fact, and repeatable, but that is where the science ends. Natural selection shows that withing a genetic range of variables, the strongest combinations survives and perpetuates. However, macro-evolution has never been observed. For macro-evolution to occur, great leaps of genetic change must take place. The only leaps of genetic change we have seen are negative mutations that are immediately weeded out by natural selection.
I could go on and on with all the problems, but I have no interest in sparking debate on evolution’s validity. The point is not whether evolution is valid or not, it is simply unprovable. I am constantly blown away by the arrogance of scientists, which brings me to my next point…
WE DON’T KNOW JACK
Science is constantly proving past scientific theories to be false. Every generation of scientists can sit back and laugh at the generation that came before them. We sit in classrooms today laughing that people once thought the world was flat. Why do we then think that now we have all the answers?
I am not offended by the Theory of Evolution, I just think it is stupid scientists are putting so much FAITH in it. One day scientists will look back and laugh at it. Even now it is starting to unravel (here is a example). The problem is that there is more to this debate than science…
IT’S NOT ABOUT SCIENCE
If the Theory of Evolution was true, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a God. If the Theory of Evolution is proven false, it doesn’t mean there is a God. Yet, somehow we have confused philosophy with science. Atheists absurdly defend evolution as fact in the hopes of killing God. Theists defend Intelligent Design hoping to claim that science proves God exists. The problem is that this battle has nothing to with science at all. Science is like the child caught in the middle of a messy divorce, being use by both parents as a way to strike at the other.
WHERE SCIENCE AND RELIGION COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER
Religion is about finding truth just as much as science. Everyone is out there just trying to find answers. People need religion because there is so much science cannot address. Yet, we need science to help us keep our feet on the ground. When we become delusional, and to wrapped up in the world of the mind, religion can exceed it’s bounds. Science helps us discover frauds and false-prophets by being able to examine radical claims (i.e. spiritual healers on television). Science humbled the religious world when it proved the Earth orbited the Sun.
Science needs religion because it has no heart. Science without religion because a brutal machine, and because it is limited, brings everything down to the level it’s own limitations. Again I refer to the Dali Lama:
“In this view many dimensions of the full reality of what it is to be human-art, ethics, spirituality, goodness, beauty, and above all, consciousness-either are reduced to chemical reactions of firing neurons or are seen as a matter of purely imaginary constructs. The danger then is that human beings may be reduced to nothing more than biological machines, the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes, with no purpose other than the biological imperative of reproduction.” – Dali Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom
SUMMING UP
I wanted to just make this article a review of The Universe in a Single Atom, because I thought it was brilliantly written. However, I wanted to also address the current issue of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design to bring this all home. I do recommend getting The Universe in a Single Atom and reading it yourself.
I love science, I have read Scientific America since I was seven. I love what science teaches me about God’s creation. As a mystic, current discoveries in quantum physics and quantum mechanics continually open up possibilities for how deep our existence goes. I am just so tired of how science is used politically and in propaganda. Science should be the ever detached third-party, the ultimate proving ground of truth, not warped by bias or unnaturally extended to do more than it can.
Buy The Universe in a Single Atom at Amazon.com
Thanks for this.
I have often wondered where the line is, if anywhere, between science and religion.
I guess the truth doesn’t even need a label or home, truth is truth whether presented by a scientist or a priest.
Great piece! I have long thought that evolution, the big bang and other theories yet to be proven are just as you said faith. Modern science seems to have as much fact as it does faith. To me it seems that science has become the modern religion of man even if he doesn’t think so. Truth is simply truth weather we want it to be or not.
Excellent piece! Both science and religion have something to bring to the table. As you succinctly put it, we don’t know jack. And the sooner the scientists and theologians realize it, the better.
Blessings and peace.
have you read “the science before science”? please consider it. thanks lucky
thank you!
I’m considering returning to church, as a christian mystic, that also believes in evolution.
When much of these issues hit, I personally grew very weary of situations where the “argument” could come up. Often, frightened of being labeled as someone that has “lost their path”.
I cannot explain to you how helpful it is to see someone explain themselves “matter of factly” without fear of judgement.
The reason why science cannot answer “why” questions is because most “why” questions are incoherent. The mere fact that you CAN frame a question doesn’t mean that it’s a legitimate or a sensible question.
What is the colour of jealousy?
Why are we here?
These questions are incoherent because they don’t have an objective answer. We make our own answers to these questions. To me, jealousy might be green to indicate festering. To you, it might be red to show its intensity. Similarly, the reason why we’re here is felt by each individual, not made up by any organised religious group.
Philosophies (like Buddhism or Existentialism) are more suited to answer these questions than religion.
“Science needs religion because it has no heart.”
A shocking statement! Science doesn’t need religion or faith at all… it needs moral and ethical philosophies. Human-art, ethics, spirituality, goodness, beauty, and consciousness are not monopolised by religions. Even scientists who don’t believe in religion can produce fine works of art. Why? Because those things are natual to humans. The Dalai Lama is a Buddhist and Buddhism is NOT a religion. It is a non-theistic philosophy of life.
Read Richard Dawkins’ “Unweaving the Rainbow” for beautiful scientific poetry.
Read Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” for a scientific view of morality and ethics.
dorayakii,
Buddhism is actually both religion AND philosophy depending on which variation, or how you choose to practice it. Even if you disagree with that, the Dali Lama was writing intentionally to the topic of religion and science.
“Why” is almost never an invalid question. In fact, our legal system, the criminal side anyway, is based entirely around “why”. Asking “why” did someone commit a crime changes a sentence from mandatory psychological treatment to the death penalty.
“Why are we here?” is a fundamental question every human must answer, if at least on a sub-conscience level, before we can even make decisions in day-to-day life. Those who believe we are here for pleasure make very different decisions that those who believe we are here to better ourselves. And, if someone does believe we are here to better ourselves, they have to decide on a standard of comparison.
“Why” contains the very substance of religion, philosophy, and life itself. It is a weak cop-out to avoid a question you can’t answer by calling it irrelevant.
On a side note, I have never heard anyone ask “what is the color of jealousy?”, probably because it is an absurd question. Comparing “Why are we here?” to “What is the color of jealousy?” is a rather desperate and asinine argument. Your tone and poor illustration reveal you come from the perspective that people are religious because they are stupid… probably not a good way to win lot of people over.
It wasn’t my intention to label anyone as stupid and I apologise if it came across in that way. We probably agree more than you think, but it may just be that we define religion/philosophy differently. Most arguments are caused by misunderstanding.
I think you probably conflate religion and philosophy to mean “something which gives you meaning in life” which is why you call Buddhism a “religion”. This may be our main point of disagreement.
I define “religion”, as do most dictionaries, as “worship of a deity or supernatural agency”. A philosophy is “an investigation of questions about existence and ethics”. Most people confuse the two because they are often VERY closely linked. Christian Mysticism is both a religion *and* a philosophy because it combines belief in a supernatural God with questions of morality and existence… Mainstream Buddhism is not a religion because it is not theistic and it is not a system of worship. I am an atheist and evolutionist myself yet I follow many of the tenets of Buddhism myself (although I would never label myself as a “Buddhist”).
Tibetan Buddhism, which is practiced by the Dalai Lama, is the smallest of the Vajrayana Buddhist sects but often seems to get the most attention through the Dalai Lama. It focuses on esoteric knowlege and is therefore not very accessible to ordinary people. The Dalai Lama is a wonderful, peaceful man, but he often presumes to speak for the rest of the Buddhist world. One time he said “From a Buddhist point of view lesbian and gay sex… is generally considered sexual misconduct”. The Buddha never made such dogmatic remarks which is one of the reasons why I feel I am justified in disagreeing with the Dalai Lama when he states that religion/God is needed to stop the heartlessness of science. Most Buddhists don’t share that view.
My point wasn’t that the question “why are we here?” is incoherant per se, but that it is incoherent to expect an answer that means something to everybody.
To me, the question “what is the colour of jealousy?” is incoherant because *I* don’t see such concepts in colour. However, for a person with synesthesia that question may just be relevant and meaningful. The question is highly subjective. “Why are we here?” is also a phenomenally subjective question.
A pure religion cannot answer those types of subjective “why” questions because it involves focusing attention on worshipping an external deity, not on discovering the self or answering questions in a subjective manner. Religion often treats subjective questions as if they were objective. It seeks to impose a meaning on life from an external source, imposes absolute morals that everybody should obey and gives answers for all mankind which other people inevitably disagree with.
Pure philosophy looks into the self to find answers to questions of morality and existence, only the philosophical side of any ideology can answer those types of questions or any individual…
I do think that both my attitude and my argument have been misrepresented. I don’t think religious people are stupid at all, I neither said nor implied that. What I do think though is that religious people often claim that science is immoral, void and without heart and that the only thing stopping science from falling into the abyss of nihilism is the shining beacon of religion. I disagree. Non-theistic philosophy is fully compatible with morality. Science does not need religion to give it meaning.
Wow, that was a lot just to “science doesn’t need religion because it has philosophy”. In the end you aren’t even defending science, but philosophy. So in the end, science doesn’t need religion because it has philosophy? You might as well just rewrite my article replacing “religion” with “philosophy” and then we have nothing to argue about.
Part of the point of the article here is that science and religion are different disciplines. I will make the same point that science and philosophy are different disciplines. Science isn’t immoral, but it is void, and should remain so. How can we follow true empirical research without a discipline toward unbiased analysis?
I should have said “we need science and religion”, rather than “science needs religion”. The point is that mixing our different pursuits together makes a jumbled mess. We need religion or philosophy because we are sentient beings, and our scientific knowledge does not come close to fulfilling our existential needs.
Truth is, I actually wrote this article more out of my passion to see science preserved than to defend religion. By forcing science into philosophy or religion (or vise versa) we corrupt it.
As a side note: The Dali Lama is NOT theistic, nor does he defend God in his book, but he does mention religion. I don’t want to misrepresent him. However, many Buddhist traditions do worship and pray to Buddha (or several variations). I think you are splitting hairs.
A little off topic:
Science finally discovers the four winds in the Bible.
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=F1FC37CB-DA7A-372B-39AC22E13013F1A4&sc=rss
“After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.” Rev. 7:1
…awesome.
I’m aware that it seems nit-picky to insist on the separations of “worship” as opposed to “reverance” but I do think those “hairs” are often split within Buddhism itself. In most sects, it is considered a grave corruption of Buddhism to worship the Buddha himself. All too often in the Buddhist texts you find warnings not to overstep that mark. Even the very idea of calling Siddhartha Gautama “the Buddha” has been a contested issue, what alone the attention that the Dalai Lama has drawn to himself.
Another “hair” which I find necessary to split is that between philosophy and religion. They are separate entities with very different approaches to how they look at the world. I just feel that many people think that it’s a choice between either pure science which is void, and religion (which by its very definition entails a god) which exclusively contains the human spirit. I just wished to point out that you don’t need religion to have meaning. In addition, philosophy IS scientific in its approach. It does not require any faith but it measures, tests and inquires although not in the physical way that natural science does. You can’t deny that historically the Islamic and Judeo-Christian texts have given the religious reason to be dogmatic, using the excuse that science is void and unethical. If that were the case, it would not be possible for non-religious scientists to be moral.
People like Sam Harris describe themselves as deeply “spiritual” in the humanist, philosophical sense of the word. Yet he realises the dangers of religion and the *stark contrast* between spirituality and faith.
Despite the rather antagonistic title, I encourage you to read “The End of Faith”, you be surprised as to its content.
I am quite familiar with both Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins’ various works. I make it a point to keep “well read” on these things. There is very little to be surprised at, they read like clockwork.
With Sam Harris, he is basically spending his time fighting to remove authority and accountability from faith. Hence, using the term “spiritual” vs. religious. Both Sam Harris, as well as yourself, have done a fine job of explaining how man still needs the basic functions of religion, such as ethics, morals, and spirituality, but that you just don’t want God or authority involved. You should stick closer to Richard Dawkins, he is more of a purist when it comes to atheism.
I wouldn’t mind continuing a conversation on “please don’t call it a religion, spiritual philosophy”, but not here as we have far wandered from the original topic. Of course, you have done a lot to demonstrate how many people want to mix science and proxy-religious philosophy, while at the same time claiming religion to be anti-scientific… I don’t think I could have done a better job.
You’ve set up a false dichotomy. Richard Dawkins and his ilk who are being true to themselves with “pure atheism”, and religions who are the bastions of morality. The people who are spiritual and moral without God are just misguided follwers of a watered-down “proxy-religious philosophy” and lying to themselves.
I don’t agree. Sam Harris is a pure atheist and Buddhism is “pure non-theism”. You’ve once again confused morals & spirituality with religion & God. Sam Harris is not atheist with a little bit of believer in him. He is an atheist.
We put up walls between atheism and morality/consciousness claiming that we can’t find any answers by empirical “scientific” philosophy and that the only answers are found in biblical metaphor and scouring the holy texts for truisms.
It’s got nothing to do with me rebelling against God’s authority. I accept authority where it is due. It’s just that there is no great wall between atheism & science on one hand and morality & spirituality. I don’t think religion & God have a monopoly on those concepts, and I don’t think my position requires special pleading as you portrayed it in the last comment. It’s not that I want morality with God & religion taken out, it’s that I don’t think God & religion are the source of our morals in the first place.
We’ll probably disagree until our dying day & I don’t appreciate the mild sarcasm you use to demonise my argument so we’ll have to agree to disagree and part ways.
Thanks for the discussion.
I think you are hiding behind your narrow definition of religion as an system of beliefs that worship a God or gods. I would argue that any system of beliefs beyond the realm of science is a religion. Philosophy is about possibilities, not absolutes. If you believe in truths/absolutes beyond the realm of science then you are religious.
Here is my challenge to you then. Tell me how you can even have ethics and morality without a God or a Creator. Even more so, how can you have ethics and morals without beliefs and foundations that stretch beyond the realm of science?
Do this and I will start a separate post with your argument for this topic.
When Is God-Science Discussable Scientifically
- Is there/what is, in the quoted article, a definition of the article’s “god” ?
- Specifically, is the article’s “god” defined as a human artifact, or not ?
If “god” is defined/understood to be a human artifact – regardless of reasons, purposes, implications, consequences – the subject “god-science” is scientifically discussable.
If “god” is not defined/understood to be a human artifact, its concept is a human virtual reality artifact experienced only through sensory stimuli, and “god-science” is not scientifically discussable. Furthermore, in this case preoccupation with this subject within a scientific frameworks contributes to corrosion and corruption of science and scientism by manifesting or implying acceptance of virtual reality as reality.
Dov Henis
Don Henis,
I am curious if you actually read the article before posting your comment. I have not written about whether God is scientific, or any variation thereof. This is an article about how the limited reach of science leaves humanity with a further need for ethical, philosophical, and existential understanding.
Empirical science, by definition, excludes not only the meta-physical but also the unknown physical. You will also see from my article I quite agree that trying to prove/disprove God in a scientific arena is absurd. How could one ever create a material experiment to prove or disprove the existence of a transcendent being?
Rather, I am asking for the two arenas of study (science and religion/philosophy) to respect and understand the limitation and proper places they both have in society. Please read the actual article before further discourse.
Repeating, with sincere respect:
If “god” is not defined/understood to be a human artifact, its concept is a human virtual reality artifact experienced only through sensory stimuli, and “god-science” is not scientifically discussable. Furthermore, in this case preoccupation with this subject within a scientific frameworks contributes to corrosion and corruption of science and scientism by manifesting or implying acceptance of virtual reality as reality.
Everything is discussable scientifically. No limit. But for scientific discussion the framework must be clearly defined. The totality of subjects that come under the classification “virtual” are not an exception. You can include in the discussion Pavlov and the modes and manners of exploiting virtuality in many areas and towards many targets…
Dov Henis
@Don,
You write well, but apparently cannot read. To repeat my last post, “I am curious if you actually read the article before posting your comment. I have not written about whether God is scientific, or any variation thereof. This is an article about how the limited reach of science leaves humanity with a further need for ethical, philosophical, and existential understanding.”
I will not distract from the point of my article here to debate the scientific validity of God. That would be another article entirely, and others have spend more time and effort on the subject than I.
Very well written. I, myself, am a Muslim student of Islamic mysticism and I share your sentiment and perspective on nearly every point.
I’d like to mention, in reply to some of the comments posted here, that, firstly, I don’t believe that you were implying that religion has a monopoly on artistry, spirituality, ethics, goodness, beauty, etc., but that science in general (& not necessarily any particular scientist) lacks these qualities, thus these and science are necessary for the harmonious balance of human nature & the pursuit of truth. And Buddhism, considering its varying sects, is both a religion and a philosophy. Nice work.