July 29, 2007
Posted at 9:00 am by Richard and tagged arthur-c-clark, church, conflict, interpretation, myth, religion, science, technology, war. Popularity: 20% [?]
What is with the resurrected war between science and religion?
I must admit, I used to think that science and religion were natural enemies. How can something that relies on faith not be in direct opposition to a practice which specifically relies on reason and evidence? The thing is, it wasn’t always like that, and to some it still isn’t. Of course, there are those who choose to create conflict, but conflict isn’t necessary. Historically, science grew from the church. The first scientists were clergy, and scientific research was sponsored by the church. The church wanted to understand God’s world, and science was one of the ways they tried to do that.
Before I really began looking into things myself, I thought that the only rational scientific view could be that God (as always, I use the term very loosely) does not exist. But there is so much magic in the universe that we can’t help but feel insignificant in it. Even if the universe does exist due to a cosmic fluke, that’s still pretty darn amazing and if we could ever truly understand that, I think that would be on par with a religious experience.
Arthur C. Clark’s famous quote “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” seems to be true not only of technology as we know it, but also the natural world around us, which possibly explains why many seem to believe the only option is that this world was created by a “sufficiently advanced being”. As our science advances, we discover more and more things that seem like magic - we continually discover new exciting things that seem completely unreal and magical. The quantum world, for example - even the greatest scientific minds still can’t fully grasp what happens in our world on a quantum level. As time goes on, our science progresses, and we understand these things differently, but that doesn’t make them any less amazing. While I accept that both science and spirituality/religion have limits to what they can explain, they both seem to be striving to understand this same magic.
Can’t science be a path to God? If God exists in all things (as is often claimed), then by understanding the world around us through science, we could begin to understand God. Sure, the God we might find wouldn’t be Yahweh, Allah or Jesus - but some parts of the bible have to be interpreted as metaphor, right? 
Further Reading:
Permalink
Share This
June 23, 2007
Posted at 12:23 am by Richard and tagged conflict, dr-phil, freedom, hijab, philosophy, politics, religion, richard-dawkins, science, stupidity, university. Popularity: 14% [?]
Dawkins (we all know him, right?) is suggesting that, while we all are aware of the threat to science by creationists and religious fundamentalists, there are other threats which must also be taken seriously.
“I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged.”
Sure, Dawkins has a point. While I certainly would disagree with his implied (correct me if I’m wrong) view that scientific truth is the only legitimate form of truth, suggesting that scientific truth should not be privileged above that of, say, religion or even philosophy would certainly be a mistake. Religious “truth” seems almost an oxymoron, but philosophical truth does have some merit. Perhaps we could also talk about “personal” truth (gotta love Dr. Phil). Of course, if science and philosophy (or science and my “personal truth”) were to ever disagree, I’d side with science - no question.
That said, I found the link to Dawkins’ quote from Atheist Revolution, who seems to take Dawkins’ argument to some strange extreme. I started reading:
For a more current example of Dawkins’ concerns, we turn to Philadelphia where police officer Kimberlie Webb sued her department for their refusal to allow her to wear a hijab while on duty…
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actually concluded that the police department had violated Webb’s rights by prohibiting her from wearing Muslim garb while on duty.
Fortunately, federal judge Bartle had more sense
Now, the judge’s reasons might have some validity - he suggests that (and this is me paraphrasing) by disallowing “religious symbols and attire” puts officers in a better position to deal with varying cultures/religions of people who they have to interact with.
But, I digress. My issue is not with the judge’s decision, as I clearly don’t know enough about the facts to disagree with him. I do, however, take issue with the comments made on Atheist Revolution:
Why must freedom to practice one’s religion become freedom to practice one’s religion in public?
Isn’t that exactly the point of the legal right to practice one’s religion freely? Things that we do in the privacy of our own home are protected by the mere fact that the government cannot enter our homes without a warrant. The only practical benefit of providing a legal freedom to practice one’s religion is to allow people to freely do this in public.
Permalink
Share This
June 10, 2007
Posted at 1:38 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, belief, conflict, eclecticism, omnipotent, religion. Popularity: 10% [?]
When someone asks me if I’m religious, my standard answer is “no, but…”. The “but” refers to my issues with religion specifically, but not the underlying teachings and spirituality. I like to call myself “eclectic”, as I don’t subscribe to any one religion, but at the same time I think each one of them has some founding in truth. Personally, I’ve found that every religion I’ve looked into (notably: Christianity, Buddhism, … even Pastafarianism!) has some very good ideas, but also has some which I just cannot believe.
I came across a post by Paul Hartigan on Open Source Theology recently which outlined 7 reasons that make it hard to believe in traditional christianity. I think his arguments can be summarised by two very common theological issues, and one I’m not sure I’ve thought of before, but is important none the less:
- The problem of evil - why does God allow bad things to happen? Even worse, why does God allow bad things to happen in his name?
- Conflict between claims made by different religions (and even conflict between branches of Christianity), some of which seem entirely illogical (”how can Christ be both God and man”)
- Problems with the belief that the universe (as large as it is) could somehow “revolve around” one short period in history, or one particular person on earth. In other words, what could possibly make us (the followers of religion “x”) so special? (Jesus in a universe of 125 Billion Galaxies)
I think Paul makes some very valid points, and these can be further generalised to almost all religions (not just Christianity). The problem of evil definitely causes issues with and idea of a God that is both omnipotent and benevolent, which it seems many religions (the Abrahamic ones, at least) claim God is. There are definitely other ideas about what God could be that would render the problem of evil void - but these ideas are not generally labelled “God”. It’s partly for this reason that I take issue with the traditional views of God, and probably why I try (although often fail) to not use the word God when discussing my views of spirituality.
Conflict between religions is definitely an issue that I’ve had problems with myself, as I tried to address in my posts “Religious Eclecticism” and “The Eclectic Agnostic’s Wager“, but it doesn’t cause issue for specific spiritual beliefs, the conflict occurs when you must accept the whole package. Taking the simplest ideas or teachings from any religion, and it’s likely you’ll find the same idea or teaching in another (although, almost certainly from a different perspective). The “golden rule”, or “ethic of reciprocity” is found in many variations by many spiritual leaders, for example.
On the third point - there seems to be an eclectic way of accepting the leaders of all religions without needing to think that the universe revolves around any one teacher or religion. What if every person is inspired by (or, “is”) “God”, and the ones we call spiritual leaders are just more in touch with that connection? Each person would interpret this connection through their own life experiences, and each would therefore describe the same “truth” in different ways.
What do you think would happen if we could get Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius and every other spiritual leader in a room together - would they see mostly eye-to-eye, or would there be massive disagreements? Personally, I’m sure each would have his own (human) views that differ from the others, but I believe they would each agree that every one of them is fighting for the same cause.
Yes, I have a problem with religion - because each one seems to take the word of their prophet, God or leader as the one true interpretation of “God’s message”. I certainly don’t have an issue with the teachings of any of our great spiritual leaders, I think they were all attempting the same thing - to make this (and possibly the next) world a better place. We need to stop fighting about which religion is right or better, and just learn from each of them.
Edit 11 June: Right after posting this I came across another article which expands on the 3rd point perfectly - An Exercise in Perspective.
Permalink
Share This
Posts
