Humanity's Family Feud
Ignore the uncreative title here, because the topic is important. Though this very idea abounds throughout every layer of our society (American society at least, I can't claim to speak for any other) and many far more credible and intelligent people than I have looked at and discussed the issue, I feel it merits some of kind a discussion by me. Also, given that many crucial and pivotal events in the world today hinge on this debate, which in turns filters into other problems (such as the assumption of the necessity of the truth of science, which is then imposed on other societies), I figured it was important for me to at least glance at this topic.
Consider a couple of things: western society prides itself on science; religion is still a powerful force; people practice religion and believe it totally; we, as people, often suffer from ferocious bouts with unbridled ignorance and stupidity; we assume science and religion can't be compatible (which is a false dichotomy - something I will argue here). This silly battle has raged on for far too long, despite the fact that some people have begun to recognize that the two are not so different.
Try to think of it in this way. Religion and science are two brothers, both born from mother humanity. Like juvenile siblings they bicker incessantly, growing and becoming more complex and more powerful over time. Eventually, they reach a point where they can either become brothers who love and understand each other, even if their views are different, or they become relatives who rarely speak to each other for the rest of their lives. Hopefully they go with the first option, and become the two great united children of humanity, rather than the hateful siblings who tear the family apart.
Ultimately I believe that religion and science are more or less the same thing. Neither religion or science have any necessary validity. Though science seems more or less certain, history is not remiss of examples of paradigmatic shifts in essential and fundamental changes in scientific theory. Given that this trend has been present since the dawn of human logical enquiries concerning the natural world, I find it hard to believe that there will not continue to be massive and fundamental changes in our conceptual frameworks with regards to science. Though every scientist on earth would hate me for this, science is a leap of faith. It requires putting trust in human logic, observational quality, and creativity. Science is the religion of reality; as a deity it demands rational thought, and in return it yields the great secrets of the cosmos, or at least enough to radically change our world.
Religion on the other hand is the science of human coping with the unknown. We form religion to help us endure the unexplainable or irreconcilable in life. A belief in an afterlife helps some reconcile the inevitability of death with meaning in life. A psychologist might call religion a coping mechanism, for through it we explain and reason what we cannot observe. There is no way to witness the departure of a soul upon the death of an individual, and so we let our creativity flow and adhere to the most plausible explanation. For Christians, there is heaven. For Hindus, there is the cycle of rebirth that marks the steady road to perfection. For some, there is nothing, just a termination of biological and neural processes culminating in the physical decay of the body and the dispersion of its constituent matter throughout reality. In all of these scenarios (except maybe the last one), religion is how we define the indefinable.
There is a logic two both of these disciplines, though the scientist would belittle the theological method of religion and radical religious adherents would reject the seeming absurdities of science. At their origins, there is nothing wholly absurd about either. Both serve humanity in its never-ending quest for happiness, security, and survival. Without science, our physical survival seems endangered, and without religion, our mental survival seems endangered.
Though it's a bit late in the article to lay out a definition, I realize now that I should define religion. Contrary to popular opinion that religion only includes organized faiths or practices, I am going to use the word religion as a referent to the beliefs or views one has concerning non-scientific and sometimes non-empirically deducible views. Under this definition, nihilism would count as a religion, because even though some nihilists may believe that nothing truly exists, their belief is still a belief that requires faith or internal logic (no scientific method). Basically, religion here may include philosophies of life, metaphysical views, or general perceptions and worldviews.
As we look forward into the future, we see potentially glorious paths for both. Science is making greater and greater leaps each year; fueled by the greatest of human ambition, it will reach the stars, carrying it's makers with it. Religion (in its ideal form) seeks to bring hope and understanding to people, preserving their integrity and peace of mind. Lying in the depths of human consciousness, it will ensure that humans don't forget their humanity when they finally leave earth, their loving mother, behind, taking to the stars to become a new breed. In short, both are crucial for the continuing propagation of our species. The one fuels the species, the other maintains it. With an inclination for entropy and chaos, we need something to prevent stagnation and something to prevent over-stimulation.
The assumed mutual incompatibility of religion and science is completely bogus. Most religious beliefs are metaphorical renditions of general observations about the world. The only people who suffer conflict are those who take things like the Bible too literally, and that goes for both sides. Some religious people take religious texts too seriously, but then again, science so fervently pursues and attacks these beliefs that they push the people into further orthodoxy. People naturally tend to cement their views and close their minds to fresh thoughts when they're under attack. If you attack somebody's beliefs, they will only harden their doctrine, thus defeating the original goal you had to begin with.
Religion is not without fault either though. Just as some scientists have become too obsessed with disproving religion, some religious people have become too indoctrinated or too unfocused to truly understand the point and objective of their beliefs. Things like the Bible may have never been intended to be taken literally. Luckily, it doesn't have to be for the most important messages to be obtained. Ultimately, the objective validity of the Bible stories does not matter, because like any great piece of literature, it should focus on humans and try to explore some dimension of them. And like most literature, the Bible is abound with metaphors and imagery and many other things that serve to structure the overall work rather than creating a definitive historical line. Though some Biblical writers may have striven for some kind of historical accuracy, most likely they did not unless it concerned some theme at hand.
Also know that neither is less guilty than the other. When religion needed weapons science was there to help, and science needed a cruel motivation, religion was there to help. Neither is actually evil, but the practitioners have often been horribly misguided or inclined to atrocities. Bear in mind that neither of these is inherently bad, though the people who sometimes use them may be. Science did not give rise to the nuclear bomb; humans did. Religion did not give rise to holy wars; humans did. These two were just tools used by some humans to achieved desired ends. Lacking any consciousness beyond that which humans supply them, there can be no evil in science or religion, only in the actions of those who do/practice them.
Alas, but I have digressed. Just understand this: science and religion are not incompatible. They have the ability to cooperate and carry humans to magnificent new heights. They both represent dynamic facets of what makes humans great. To reject one would be too reject one of our greatest dimensions. Religion gives us meaning, gives us motivation to strive for something, while science gives something to strive for, gives us a potential source for meaning, or at the very least, a means for obtaining it. We require both, and anyone who seeks to abandon either is likely consumed by madness, or laziness, or sheer ignorance. We must embrace both of our children, for in one lies the future of our physical being, in one lies the future of our mental being, and in both lies the future of our race. Hand in hand, let us march gloriously into a new future, joined as a family and boundless in our potential.
Consider a couple of things: western society prides itself on science; religion is still a powerful force; people practice religion and believe it totally; we, as people, often suffer from ferocious bouts with unbridled ignorance and stupidity; we assume science and religion can't be compatible (which is a false dichotomy - something I will argue here). This silly battle has raged on for far too long, despite the fact that some people have begun to recognize that the two are not so different.
Try to think of it in this way. Religion and science are two brothers, both born from mother humanity. Like juvenile siblings they bicker incessantly, growing and becoming more complex and more powerful over time. Eventually, they reach a point where they can either become brothers who love and understand each other, even if their views are different, or they become relatives who rarely speak to each other for the rest of their lives. Hopefully they go with the first option, and become the two great united children of humanity, rather than the hateful siblings who tear the family apart.
Ultimately I believe that religion and science are more or less the same thing. Neither religion or science have any necessary validity. Though science seems more or less certain, history is not remiss of examples of paradigmatic shifts in essential and fundamental changes in scientific theory. Given that this trend has been present since the dawn of human logical enquiries concerning the natural world, I find it hard to believe that there will not continue to be massive and fundamental changes in our conceptual frameworks with regards to science. Though every scientist on earth would hate me for this, science is a leap of faith. It requires putting trust in human logic, observational quality, and creativity. Science is the religion of reality; as a deity it demands rational thought, and in return it yields the great secrets of the cosmos, or at least enough to radically change our world.
Religion on the other hand is the science of human coping with the unknown. We form religion to help us endure the unexplainable or irreconcilable in life. A belief in an afterlife helps some reconcile the inevitability of death with meaning in life. A psychologist might call religion a coping mechanism, for through it we explain and reason what we cannot observe. There is no way to witness the departure of a soul upon the death of an individual, and so we let our creativity flow and adhere to the most plausible explanation. For Christians, there is heaven. For Hindus, there is the cycle of rebirth that marks the steady road to perfection. For some, there is nothing, just a termination of biological and neural processes culminating in the physical decay of the body and the dispersion of its constituent matter throughout reality. In all of these scenarios (except maybe the last one), religion is how we define the indefinable.
There is a logic two both of these disciplines, though the scientist would belittle the theological method of religion and radical religious adherents would reject the seeming absurdities of science. At their origins, there is nothing wholly absurd about either. Both serve humanity in its never-ending quest for happiness, security, and survival. Without science, our physical survival seems endangered, and without religion, our mental survival seems endangered.
Though it's a bit late in the article to lay out a definition, I realize now that I should define religion. Contrary to popular opinion that religion only includes organized faiths or practices, I am going to use the word religion as a referent to the beliefs or views one has concerning non-scientific and sometimes non-empirically deducible views. Under this definition, nihilism would count as a religion, because even though some nihilists may believe that nothing truly exists, their belief is still a belief that requires faith or internal logic (no scientific method). Basically, religion here may include philosophies of life, metaphysical views, or general perceptions and worldviews.
As we look forward into the future, we see potentially glorious paths for both. Science is making greater and greater leaps each year; fueled by the greatest of human ambition, it will reach the stars, carrying it's makers with it. Religion (in its ideal form) seeks to bring hope and understanding to people, preserving their integrity and peace of mind. Lying in the depths of human consciousness, it will ensure that humans don't forget their humanity when they finally leave earth, their loving mother, behind, taking to the stars to become a new breed. In short, both are crucial for the continuing propagation of our species. The one fuels the species, the other maintains it. With an inclination for entropy and chaos, we need something to prevent stagnation and something to prevent over-stimulation.
The assumed mutual incompatibility of religion and science is completely bogus. Most religious beliefs are metaphorical renditions of general observations about the world. The only people who suffer conflict are those who take things like the Bible too literally, and that goes for both sides. Some religious people take religious texts too seriously, but then again, science so fervently pursues and attacks these beliefs that they push the people into further orthodoxy. People naturally tend to cement their views and close their minds to fresh thoughts when they're under attack. If you attack somebody's beliefs, they will only harden their doctrine, thus defeating the original goal you had to begin with.
Religion is not without fault either though. Just as some scientists have become too obsessed with disproving religion, some religious people have become too indoctrinated or too unfocused to truly understand the point and objective of their beliefs. Things like the Bible may have never been intended to be taken literally. Luckily, it doesn't have to be for the most important messages to be obtained. Ultimately, the objective validity of the Bible stories does not matter, because like any great piece of literature, it should focus on humans and try to explore some dimension of them. And like most literature, the Bible is abound with metaphors and imagery and many other things that serve to structure the overall work rather than creating a definitive historical line. Though some Biblical writers may have striven for some kind of historical accuracy, most likely they did not unless it concerned some theme at hand.
Also know that neither is less guilty than the other. When religion needed weapons science was there to help, and science needed a cruel motivation, religion was there to help. Neither is actually evil, but the practitioners have often been horribly misguided or inclined to atrocities. Bear in mind that neither of these is inherently bad, though the people who sometimes use them may be. Science did not give rise to the nuclear bomb; humans did. Religion did not give rise to holy wars; humans did. These two were just tools used by some humans to achieved desired ends. Lacking any consciousness beyond that which humans supply them, there can be no evil in science or religion, only in the actions of those who do/practice them.
Alas, but I have digressed. Just understand this: science and religion are not incompatible. They have the ability to cooperate and carry humans to magnificent new heights. They both represent dynamic facets of what makes humans great. To reject one would be too reject one of our greatest dimensions. Religion gives us meaning, gives us motivation to strive for something, while science gives something to strive for, gives us a potential source for meaning, or at the very least, a means for obtaining it. We require both, and anyone who seeks to abandon either is likely consumed by madness, or laziness, or sheer ignorance. We must embrace both of our children, for in one lies the future of our physical being, in one lies the future of our mental being, and in both lies the future of our race. Hand in hand, let us march gloriously into a new future, joined as a family and boundless in our potential.
posted by Andrew McKenna at 11:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home