Will Science and Religion ever be Reconciled?

I know that some who read this may not consider things the same way I do so I'll get started explaining myself. In modern times most of educated humanity uses science to dictate their beliefs even if it is to the smallest degree. When we think about what happens with things such as thunder and lightning, speed, the world, the cosmos, etc we often begin by looking at it from a more scientific view.

Now take a look at man from some 400 years ago and even back as far as the beginning of our race. He was much less scientific in his approach to the world. Some might even say superstitious. When the sky opened up and the thunder rolled many once believed that it was the gods speaking, or even that the gods were wrathful at that time. When he looked at the cosmos and our place in it he thought that we were the center of the known universe (which was far smaller than the current known boundaries).

While I am not saying that either of these view points is inherently wrong, I do believe that mankind as a whole has yet to succesfully meld them together into a more singular belief. Now I understand that there are many things in religion that are seemingly unprovable by scientific standards. I also acknowledge that there are things in science that religion has yet to be able to come to terms with. For example (and it is a huge example in it's own right) how can we ever bring ourselves to believe that there was a god or gods and that they created the cosmos, while still believing that the cosmos was born at random from nothing more than a bunch of energetic space dust?

Perhaps you can see the quandry here. These too views (which I am using as a general example of the larger picture) are very hard to bring together without first escaping the dogmatic trappings of each. Do we truly know that gods created the universe? Do we truly know that the universe was created at random? Only by discarding such traditions as these can we bring these two thought processes together and find our way to true enlightenment.

Let me show you, I believe that there is a truly infinite energy at work in our universe. I would call this force Tao, but for the sake of acknowlegement you could call it God, or gods, or even the Force. This energy or being or whatever you call it is constantly shaping and reshaping our reality but often in ways that we have not fully understood. I propose that when the universe was created it was created by this force. Not at random, not even by design, but by need. The cosmos needed a universe, the universe needed material, and the material needed form. Why this is I have yet to work out but I know in my being that it is true.

A prime example of this is something I would like any posters to think on. Did the laws of gravity exist before the universe was born? Was there an almost mystical force behind it all, a force that we now call gravity? Or were we the ones who created gravity when we came to understand this strange force that was acting on our world. Think well my friends and fellow philosophers, think well.

 

It seems to me that the conflict is not between religion and science, but between literal interpretation of the bible and science. One can believe in the scientific explanation of the big bang and still believe that a god or gods created that energetic space dust and caused it to expand into the universe we know of today. The trouble begins when people start reading an old book written by a bunch of old men and take it as literal fact.

 

Not even there, if they accept other people don't take it as literal fact and both sides accept you have different opinions about such specific yet kind of abstract things as the creator and the big bang/creation of the universe. It's when people make the mistake their strong opinion about it should be enforced on others that happen to have a total different idea about it.

By the way, just because we as humanity had less scientific knowledge in the past doesn't make it so that there was a less scientific approach. How contradictional as it may sound science and superstition have always been present in humans at the same time. We have build our scientific insights on those of religious and superstitious people in the past that perhaps had some thoughts they wouldn't have in this day but still didn't let those thoughts bother them to look and handle the world in a very pragmatic approach.

 

:smilielol5:

Seriously????

DUUUUUDE, c'mon, of course gravity existed before man, man observed certain phenomena and then developed what we call "the law of gravity".

So first off, you need to sort out just "what" it is you want to ask.
First you ask "Did the laws of gravity exist before the universe was born?"
Of course the "laws of gravity" didn't exists because those laws are man made definitions that describe the phenomena we observe.
Now whether or not gravity existed before the "universe was born"........
Then you asked if we "invented" gravity by defining it.

really? think about it for a minute...........

Given the current definition of "universe", no of course gravity didn't exist prior to the universe, but then again there is no way possible to ever know what existed before the present universe we experience.


All natural phenomena existed before man, all science does is try to offer explanations for what we observe.

You really need to re-assess what you think is "science" and learn what the scientific process involves or you are just going to make yourself look silly.
I'm not saying there is not merit to your opinions and viewpoint, just it is a good idea to have a grasp of what you are talking about. The best way to learn your opponents weakness' is to "become" your opponent.

For me personally I am very, very pragmatic and try to follow lines of logic and rational to arrive at a resolution to a situation. I have formal education in the sciences and am adept at understanding scientific principles and research.

At the same time I am a very spiritually minded person, have had the full "born again, Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues Christian " experience, have explored vast realms of inner-space via psychedelic substances and natural meditative practices.

I really don't see anything needing to be reconciled except our perceptions and having our knowledge increased.

Everything is always tentative and subject to change.
Anything is possible, not everything is probable.
:sunny:

 

It is good that you feel the way you do about both your faith and your knowledge. I must say though that I don't think you are grasping the underlying meaning of what I said about gravity. I can even tie my question about gravity into the whole point of this thread if you so wish you need only ask. For now though I will simply say that I did not say that gravity didn't exist at all before mankind came to think about it. I implied that the laws of gravity didn't exist before that point. Can you see the difference? If not then please think on it somemore before you proceed to call me foolish.

I do agree with you that literal interpretation of the holy books of each faith has often been a bane to the advancement of our understanding of science and religion. I do not agree on the point you made that it is the underlying enigma.

 

Uhhmm, maybe you should re-read my post.
I pointed out that the "laws" of gravity did not exist prior to man because the "laws of gravity" are simply a means for us to describe and define the observed phenomena.
As I stated, all natural phenomena existed before the advent of humans, all we are doing via science/religion is trying to;
1) understand and define what we observe and experience
2) define causalities for the observed/experienced phenomena
3) make predictions concerning the defined phenomena based on our observations.

When you distill it all down, both science and religion follow the above process, whether it be a stone age shaman trying to figure out what god he angered that resulted in a thunderstorm so he doesn't do it again,
or a meteorologist studying the predominate weather patterns and current situation in order to make predictions for the evening news report.

They are both doing the exact same thing, unless you grasp that common purpose in both science and religion and be able to discern how it manifests, you will always see the two as disparate and irreconcilable.

After reading through you original post again, I feel you have not fully apprehended "what" science is or what scientific theory is.

I also addressed much of what else you said by stating that all knowledge is tentative and subject to change upon gaining further knowledge.

The stone age shaman took what info he had and made the best prediction possible.
Time passed and knowledge increased;
today the meteorologist does the exact same thing, takes what info he has and makes the best predictions possible.

As knowledge increases, the disparity between science and religion fades into nothingness.

I am not calling you foolish, just saying that the foundation upon which you are constructing your argument is faulty and incomplete.

 

I understand science my friend. I understand that science is based on scientific theory and that scientific theory is seen as anything that can be proven by scientific methods. I also understand the most glaring difference between science and religion. Science seeks to explain the universe in the physical and literal sense. Religion seeks to explain it in the spiritual. These two views are what have separated science and religion for hundreds of years and why scientists and scholars have mocked religion for far longer than that. Also if you were already agreeing with what I said I feel as though there is no need for any of the above post. It would seem to me as though you are trying to argue on something that we inherently agree upon. Of course gravity existed before mankind came to understand it. This is obvious, but in essence it was not gravity before mankind named it so.

 

That viewpoint in itself indicates to me that you are not as deeply "in tune" with what science is as you think.

Again, both science and religion seek to address the three points I mentioned previously;

1) understand and define what we observe and experience
2) define causalities for the observed/experienced phenomena
3) make predictions concerning the defined phenomena based on our observations.

If you cannot see past the jots and tittles of the two seemingly disparate disciplines, I don't know how to better illustrate it.

Let me just say this;
regardless of what your or my personal beliefs and convictions may be, I do know one thing for certain...
it is all already melded together and reconciled, never has been any disparity between the two, the only metric that has changed and will continue to change is our knowledge and understanding of the phenomena we observe and experience.

Will science and religion ever be reconciled?
there never was any problem in the first place. :sunny:

 

It would seem to me as though you are trying to discard everything I have stated without giving it even the most basic of thought. First off according to what you have stated we already agree that science and religion can be reconciled. While you may have "reconciled" it in your own mind this does not mean that the entire world has. I started this to give the other groovy posters here a chance. Maybe you should think about what it is you say and what it is I say before you up and answer, it would make for a much more interesting talk. My above statement about the difference in science and religion is 100% accurate as any one who has walked down both paths can attest. I did not say that they do not seek to answer the same questions, I stated that they try to answer them differently. I'll even give you an example.

You stated
1) understand and define what we observe and experience
2) define causalities for the observed/experienced phenomena
3) make predictions concerning the defined phenomena based on our observations.

so we will use this list
1: a scientist looks at a sunrise and says the sun rises because the earth is orbiting around it and we are simply here to view that change. A religious man looks at a sunrise and says that it is beautiful because god made that sunrise possible. Difference in interpretation evident.
2: The scientific man then begins to think about what the orbiting of the earth around the sun entails. The religious man thinks about what the meaning behind it entails for him and his belief.
3: The scientific man predicts that the sun will continue to rise because this is the "natural order' of an observed pattern. The religious man thanks his god that the sun will rise again. Inherent difference.
You try to argue with me on points that you clearly are missing entirely. Why don't we just agree that we have both come to understand the duality of religion and science in our own ways?

 

The religion of the doctors is truth. Pursue that and see if you don't find some "reconciliation" and hopefully, a little grace for yourself as well

 

Well, your take on it and examples are frankly just too simplistic. For the above examples I would replace "religious" with "uneducated" and you get the same result, but it encompasses a much wider sampling of humanity.
Yeah we are discussing the same general topic, just at different strata it would appear.
My thoughts are well beyond the sun rise and such and more onto the sub-quantum principles and phenomena at play, the nature of consciousness and related shit.

When you start delving into those arenas of physics, the line between "science" and "religion" begins to get fuzzy at the very least.

 

What exactly is the religion of the doctors friend?

 

I've heard it said before that science doesn't need religion, and religion doesn't need science, but man needs both.

 

There was a time when religion and science were one. After the Enlightenment, as science became more empirical and struggled with the spiritual underpinnings of the church, philosophy (which you could say is where the rubber met the road between religion and science), found itself in a crisis. In response to the growing materialism, Berkeley claimed that all that is real is only perception---thereby denying the materialist viewpoint. Hume responded that we cannot define mind and it therefore does not exist, thereby denying the Idealist viewpoint. Philosophy had hit a wall, which was more critical to both science and religion than one may realize. A comical comment of the time, regarding this crisis was, 'No matter, never mind.'

Kant took these broken pieces and re-threaded them back together, giving new life to philosophy, and at the same modernized science, so that it could shape the modern age. But in doing so, he separated science from religion, and they have remained separate ever since.

They have also become extremely dogmatic. So much so that religion embraces pseudo-science and anti-science (take for example creationist theories), and the staunch materialism of science refuses to acknowledge what can be very obvious suggestions of idealism.

What you see as areas of science that are getting fuzzy as a dividing line between science and religion, are not recognized as such by the reductionist thinkers of either dogma.

I see it as a coming to terms with the question that Indy Hippy asked. But it is not the answer that you already see in place. We still live in the Modern Age---an age when the Unifying truth of our culture is no longer religion, but instead science. However we are also facing the Post-Modern crisis---science has broken down as the Unifying Truth, and modern culture is struggling without a Unifying Truth, trying to find value and meaning.

The only way I can see us resolving the Post-Modern crisis is for science to break through that barrier of spirituality---to gain a theoretical understanding that there is a non-physical reality, just as there is a physical reality. And this will happen exactly in those fringe areas of science---such as quantum physics.

 

Another interpretation of what Indy Hippy said is the question of whether gravity existed before we (as consciousness) defined it. This would fit both questions of whether it existed before the universe began, and did it exist before we defined it.

If all there is, as ultimate reality, is mind, then there is a question of whether or not mind had to define gravity, before it gave being to the universe. Then as it gave being to the universe, it eventually manifested itself as man, among other things.

 

I have mentioned elsewhere on this site the amazing conversations I have had with Kari Black Elk---he is the grandson of the well-known medicine man, Wallace Black Elk, and the great grandson of the famous medicine man, Black Elk. He is also following in their tradition and already has his own altar.

He only has a high school education, and no formal college education in science. But we have sat up all night numerous times discussing very deep concepts of quantum physics. He is filled with insight and understanding---but he doesn't speak in terms of science---he speaks in terms of spirits and what not. But when you take what he says and put it in scientific terms----you would be amazed at what he understands in regards to quantum physics. The same was true of his grandfather, Wallace Black Elk. Albert Einstein a friend of Wallace Black Elk, said that Wallace was the only true teacher he ever knew.

The Lakota creation story is actually filled with scientific insight.

When the Bible says, in the beginning, God said, Let there be light----that was actually a very deep scientific insight that we are realizing only today.

I do seriously think that we are approaching a time when science will come to terms with spirituality-----that there will be a theoretical understanding of consciousness and the non-physical, and that this will give a credence to idealism.

This will be the start of a new Unifying Truth, and will carry mankind into its next level of development.

 

Aggh! I have to get to a hotspot. Phone b suckin' - be back. For now, some of it's ideas are being expressed already. They can be challenging to interpret when one is learning concepts as opposed to having gained familiarity and ease through exercise with them. Ok - gimmer a bit...

 

Sounds to me as though you are just trying to make this whole thing more important than it is. I was using those prior examples as just that, examples. Even in the realm of quantum physics don't the same basic thoughts hold true? You are trying to talk purely physical whereas I am attempting to address the ascension of our consciousness beyond that. One school of thought cannot even come close to competing with the other. It does not take an "uneducated" man to appreciate a beautiful sunrise. It hardly takes an "uneducated" man to contemplate the mysteries of life. Perhaps if you take more time to consider the deeper thoughts behind that which I state you'll realize that we are on the same path just using different methods.

You hit the nail right on the head Wolf. This sort of thinking is exactly what I was trying to dig new channels for in this thread. Well put and wonderfully said.

 

To me, the key begins with trying to reckon with non-physical existence. Because we live in and can only understand the physical universe, whenever we encounter the non--physical we have a hard time identifying it as anything other than physical.

Perhaps light, in all its forms is the shape this key will take. Light is a zero-mass, zero-time particle and does not actually exist in the physical universe, it is more an element of the 4th dimension. Yet we always experience light in the ever-present 'now' yet that now exists for an infinitely small instant (and what is infinitely small other than zero in actuality).

 

I agree with MVWolf.

I also feel (or greatly hope?) that one day science will invent the instruments needed to measure what is now considered to be religious AND paranormal in nature. By religion or religious, I truly mean sprituality or spiritual.

I have never felt that science and spirituality are necessarily mutually exclusive.