Comments on: How Science and Religion Can Play Nicely Together (And Should!)

By: Abu Siraj

Abu Siraj — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:45:27 +0000

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.

By: Yaholo

Yaholo — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:34:38 +0000

@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.

By: Dov Henis

Dov Henis — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:02:15 +0000

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

By: Yaholo

Yaholo — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:09:18 +0000

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.

By: Dov Henis

Dov Henis — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:40:56 +0000

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.

Dov Henis

By: Yaholo

Yaholo — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:09:52 +0000

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.

By: dorayakii

dorayakii — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:09:41 +0000

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.

By: Yaholo

Yaholo — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:51:11 +0000

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.

By: dorayakii

dorayakii — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:51:43 +0000

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.

By: Yaholo

Yaholo — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:53:05 +0000

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.