The war of Science and Religion

[Az]

Religion and science can and do coexist. But often seem to be at odds with each other. So why is this? Is it all religion and all science that compete with each other? Or is it specific aspects of each that vie with each other?

All religions are not the same. All beliefs are not the same. Right or wrong a religion has to survive and spread in order to be known. The truth will die a quick and silent death if there isn't a way to make it known. So its not just a qustion of being right or wrong. There also has to be a means of distribution.

Thus each religion develops its own set of criteria for asuring its spread. The means all have to be designed to work within the environment that is created by our brains and society. Designed but not by intent. Like in biology, evolution and natural selection raise their head here. Those methods which don't work don't survive. Even if they are the truth. Those methods which are very succesful become dominant. Even if they are not the truth.

Like life there are a multitude of tactics available for assuring the survival of the structure. Some are less aggressive and focus on maintaining strong familial ties. Some are more open and involve tribal structures. Others are far more aggressive and seek to convert outsiders to its systems. Some even go so far as to seek to destroy opposition.

There are also those structures that are not as fixed in nature as others. More adaptable and flexible. They are able to survive the alteration of core structures with the change of the environment. Not as aggressive but more hardy and able to survive change.

This is the environment of our society. It is rich with these competing social structures. Religions and Philosophies. Each vying with each other for a stake in our mental landscape. The aggressive predatory belief systems are far more succesful but they suffer from a weakness to change. Thus they carry with them absolute moral authority as part of their makeup. This aspect plays out when they achieve power over a society. It strikes down anything that may lead to competition or change.

A quick glance through history shows what happens in societies that rely on aggressive authoritative constructs. Not all are religious institutions. Communism as found in the USSR was of this nature as well. And it found itself at odds with science when it differed with its positions.

This is why science and religion seem to be at odds with each other so often. It is because the most succesful forms of belief tend to be aggressive ones. Carrying with them the natural weakness to change. 2000 years ago the Library of Alexandria was burned to the ground because it represented the height of knowledge and threatened the growing religious presense.

For 1500 years the western hemisphere was dominated by an aggressive absolute religious presense. It's hold did not break until the Age of Enlightenment fused an idea in the minds of most people. It forced change. The idea was that other ideas may have validity. Our beliefs are not the only ones. And that other people have a right to their ideas. And most damaging, perhaps we can learn from their ideas.

The Age of Enlightenment brought forth reason and science as tools to advance the people. And the war between science and a particular form of religion was begun in ernest.

Today most believers are the product of that fusion of reason, tolerance, and belief. Flexibility was introduced into their structure. The ability to adapt to change. But as in biological evolution just because a new form has evolved the predecessor does not disappear. It is a competition for resources and our minds and society are the resources.

Thus the voice of that ancient belief structure still reverberates in our society. And the advance of flexibility weakens the ability of a belief to replicate. It enables survival in the presense of a diverse and changing society. But the older belief structure can out reproduce it and most other structures.

The weakness it has is knowledge. Knowledge is like an innoculant to its absolute positions. This is why it historically strikes down any such knowledge. It cannot tolerate anything that is different.

[pocoloco]

1. I've always heard that

there is no difference between true science and true religion.
The problem arises from there being so very few true scientists or true theologians!

[Az]

4. The problem

arises from what is true. Simply put: We don't know. Science does not prescribe the truth. It hints at what is likely true. Religion says what it believes is true but has no way of demonstrating it is right.

We are trying to get at the truth. Science is like a sculptor. It chips away what it can fathom to be false and leaves behind what is true. Religion is like a painter. Deliberately placing on the canvas what it believes to be the truth.

[annabanana]

5. very nicely put Az..

This is also my perspective..
The closer they can (honestly) be made to each other, the closer we are to the truth.

[Maat]

2. That's why I belong to the Church of Religious Science.

The name was designed to reinforce that religion and science are compatible, and that the One Energy (that is within us all - call him 'God,' call her 'Goddess,' call her the Great Spirit) gives all kinds of models, facts, and tools - to use for our health and prosperity.

So, I not only think that religion and science can co-exist, they do, and I celebrate that! Self-statements, for example, are the architects of our brain development, and can be considered a spiritual or scientific phenomena.

[Xipe Totec]

3. My Favorite Book on this Subject

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
by

ANDREW DICKSON WHITE
LL.D. (Yale), L.H.D. (Columbia), PH.DR. (Jena)
Late President and Professor of History at Cornell University

New York
D. Appleton and Company
1898

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/

[indigobusiness]

6. The war doesn't exist.

Only the false war exists...and it rages.



"In my view, it is the most important function
of art and science to awaken this feeling
and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."

(Einstein)
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/Einstein1.html

[Az]

7. Elaborate please

Specifically on the false war.

[indigobusiness]

8. I did...in my edited post.

http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/Einstein1.html

[Az]

9. Knowledge accumulates

I don't think Albert had heard of such things as evolutionary psychology or memetics. These have expanded how we can view the nature of things. Thus we can see the wheels in which other wheels are turning. New insights have lead to new understanding. New understanding can become aware of old threats never realised before.

[indigobusiness]

11. Religion is about the timeless nature of things.

Not trends or opinion. As is science.

It involves the immutable and ineffable.

[Az]

13. Not always

Some religions are very capable of adapting and changing. Even the orthodox religions can change. In fact if they are incapable of changing at all they often wind up on the scrap heap of history. They certainly depend on the appearance of unchanging. Ancient wisdom. Old knowledge. But the nature of life is it changes. And that which is incapable of change gets ground up by it.

[indigobusiness]

14. Always and absolutely.

I was referring to content, not form.

[Az]

15. So are you saying

That religions do not change?

[indigobusiness]

17. What religions are ABOUT...

does not change.

[Az]

18. I beg to differ

There was a religious order in China called the Mohists. They held to beliefs of love, compassion, and peace. They remained neutral in all dealings. They became known for this. During disputes they would be sought out to moderate negotiations. Being the objectivists they were they decided that in order to fairly negotiate military truces they would have to understand military factors. So they began studying war. They became quite good at tactics. In time they were sought out to lead armies. Because they despised death and destruction they initially refused. However an appeal was made to the lives they could save by leading a descisive and quick victory. Thus they transitioned from pacifists to the lands best military leaders.

Not all religions and beliefs are fixed in nature. Some adhere to philosophical ideas instead of entrenched doctrines. And these can ebb and flow. Even doctrinare religions can change. New interpretations to fit modern social structures can allow a great deal of flexibility.

[indigobusiness]

19. It's beyond question.

It is definitive.

Fundamental issues of meaning are immutable.

[Az]

We obviously differ strongly on this issue

Perhaps its an issue of semantics. Let us clarify our terms.

What issues are you discussing and how are they immutable?

[indigobusiness]

22. If the basis of meaning...

were changeable, it would be meaningless.

[Az]

24. Um wow

You do know they constantly update dictionaries right? A living language constantly changes. Society changes. The value of varying interactions changes based on societal changes. Thus what may have been important to a people that eeked out a living in a desert may have no practical meaning to a people that live in a technologically advanced society. Eveything changes. That which does not change is dead.

[indigobusiness]

26. Your concept of meaning...

is a mystery.

[Az]

27. Ask yourself this question

If you walk into a random church anywhere in the US do you think they will be teaching exactly the same ideas and concepts they were teaching 2000 years ago?

[indigobusiness]

30. Yes...

exactly. Only the form changes. Never the content.

[edhopper]

10. Stephen Gould thought

They occupy different spheres of human experience. I think science is a way to find the truth of our material world. It does not address philosophy or culture.
When a religion states a "Truth" as fact and that "Truth" is shown to be false by science (the creation of the universe, the structure of the solar system etc...) then there is a conflict. Science always wins on the facts, but often loses in the popular forum.

[Az]

12. Stephen played a game

He and Sagan were of the mind that you had to reach the thinking of the believers. If you couched your words in terms they distrusted or felt threatened by they would reject you outright. Dawkins decided to take the damn the torpedoes approach and it has cost him much.

Gould was mistaken on a critical issue. He tried to state that science and religion each delt with a seperate issue. He believed that religion was fixed on moral issues and science on factual issues. He saw the aspect of religion that was created when the Age of Enlightenment fused Humanist thoughts to Judeo/Christian thinking. He failed to realise that there was still a strong and growing vein of older and further reaching belief. One that insisted that it had all the truth. Not just the moral arguments.

I have played Jane Goodall in many different religious communities. There is a blindness in most. It is along this axis. Those that are tolerant and accepting of others are blind to the notion that honest belief can lead to intolerance. While those that are intolerant are fixed on the notion that those that are tolerant are not true believers.

I was in a coversation recently with a modern Christian. Someone that had their own beliefs but was comfortable with those that differed. She was convinced that the intolerance expressed by the more rabid believers was due to their not really believing. They lacked faith in their own beliefs and thus expressed outrage at anything that reminded them of their own lack of faith. She was completely unaware of her own fusion of beliefs. Bringing together tolerance and belief.

[m berst]

16. brilliant insight

"They lacked faith in their own beliefs and thus expressed outrage at anything that reminded them of their own lack of faith."

There is the golden key to unlocking people's hearts and minds and so being able to stop the religious extremism.

[H2O Man]

31. "Intolerance

btrays a want of faith in one's cause." -- Gandhi.

[indigobusiness]

20. Games are for gameplayers.

Belief is not the essence of religion.

[Az]

21. So define it

You seem to have a strong belief about what religion is. It would do this conversation a world of good if you spelled it out.

[indigobusiness]

23. I haven't discussed my beliefs...

I've tried to clarify the definition.

[Az]

25. Not really

I am not trying to pick a fight here. But you seem to be avoiding trying to define anything. I would really appreciate some clarity.

[indigobusiness]

28. Really.

I'm unable to shed any more light on these concepts. I've been rigorous in my attempt at clarity.

I wish you well in your study. You seem passionate and sincere.

Cheers!

[OneBlueSky]

29. theologian Matthew Fox has an interesting take on this question . . .

"The late E.F. Schumacher believed that there are two places to find wisdom: in nature and in religious traditions. To seek wisdom in nature we should obviously go to those who have loved nature enough to study it. Because science explores nature it can be a powerful source of wisdom. It often has been. For in just about every culture imaginable, religion and science were teammates who offered people a cosmic myth that allowed them to understand their universe, to find meaning in it, and to live out their lives with meaning. In the West, however, religion and science have been at odds ever since the seventeenth century. This split has been disastrous for the people: religion has become privatized and science a violent employee of technology, with the result that the people have become alternately bored, violent, lonely, sad, and pessimistic. Above all, the people have become victims -- victims of world wars, massive military taxes, needless unemployment, dire conflict between the haves and have-nots. . .

"Clearly, there has been enough sin on both the religious and the scientific fronts in Western cultural history. We seek now a truce -- and more than a truce, a common exploration for wisdom among scientists and spiritual seekers alike: the wisdom that nature can teach us and the wisdom that religious traditions can teach us. . .

"To recover a spiritual tradition in which creation and the study of creation matters would be to inaugurate new possibilities between spirituality and science that would shape the paradigms of culture, its institutions, and its people. These paradigms would be powerful in their capacity to transform."

Matthew Fox, Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality, 1983