It's time to use the power of the Internet to confront the two great strands of the modern world, the strands that scientist and novelist C.P. Snow called the "two cultures": the scientific, and the humanistic. Must these two cultures run on separate tracks? Must they be at war with each other? Or could conflict shift to comprehension?
We are not talking about making science into a religion, or religion into a science. We are talking about finding the unity in diversity that's basic for a healthy community.
Both religion and science are key factors of life in our communities. When HuffPost Religion launched, Paul Raushenbush wrote that "there is no question that religion plays a crucial role in how humans make meaning, create community, act politically, and find mandates for how to live a good life." We can say the same thing about science. It, too, plays a crucial role in our life already because of all the science-based technologies we use. They shape how we live, what we consume, and what we want to -- and can -- achieve.
Both religion and science shape the way we see the world, and for that reason they shape how we act in the world. The great mathematician and philosopher Henri Poincaré pointed out that we all carry a view of the world in our head and act in light of it whether we know it or not. The trouble is that religion and science create different, and in some respects opposing, views. The time has come to look at these views and see whether their contrasts really are a chronic, irremediable cause for conflict. Conflict between religion and science is dangerous, for it rends asunder the fabric of society and can degenerate into violence.
Of course, there is not just one science worldview and one religion worldview but as many as there are science- and religion-minded people in the world. Yet there are some typical features of the individual worldviews, and these are useful when we try to compare them and seek to understand their agreements and disagreements. Take, for example, the typical worldviews of the following people:
The worldview of the classical scientist is that of Newtonian physics: the universe is a giant mechanism that runs harmoniously, if meaninglessly, through all eternity. It's the view of most of the people who consider themselves scientific.
The worldview of the orthodox religionist is shared by the devout Christian, Jew, and Muslim. The world is the creation of a transcendent God and testifies to His omnipotent will and spirit.
The world of the mystic is the world of traditional peoples and Eastern religions. It's a world infused by spirit and consciousness; all things are alive and everything that happens to them has deeper meaning.
The atheist's worldview is clear-cut: only what we can see and touch is real, everything else is imagination or wishful thinking.
The new scientist's worldview is in principle open to everything we can experience and to everything we can rationally derive from experience, as long as it's verified by repeatable observation and controlled experiment.
These are the prototypes of the principal kinds of worldviews people espouse today, even if they don't espouse them as cleanly and starkly as this. They line up along a scale with science on the one end and religion on the other.
The classical scientist is on the science end of the scale. He is in direct opposition to the orthodox religionist, who, particularly if he is a fundamentalist, is on the other end.
The mystic is on the religion side, but he is not at its end, for he is generally less explicit and dogmatic than either the classical scientist or the fundamentalist religionist.
The modern atheist is dogmatic on what he claims to be the side of science. He is opposed to all views that claim that reality has a higher dimension.
The new scientist should be open to all ways of thinking about the world but tends to disregard or dismiss ways that don't measure up to his concept of sound knowledge.
What about you and me -- what kind of worldview do we hold? Only you can answer the question regarding your own view. As to me, I need only to say that my worldview is aligned with the view of the new scientist (hopefully without the disciplinary blinders), and that, because I see the world as an integral, interconnected whole, it's also compatible with the worldview of the mystic and of spiritual people in general.
HuffPost Religion offers us an opportunity to discuss our worldviews and see how they line up with the view of others. Entering this "worldview café" doesn't need to make you collapse your differences or become dominated by just one kind of view. Instead, it can create a better appreciation of your differences and a greater willingness to live with them. After all, we all share the same planet and would best share it without ignoring, dismissing, or denigrating each other.
A little more understanding could produce a good deal more tolerance and a greater will to live together in peace. This would be a good thing indeed in a world rent by incomprehension and miscommunication and rocked by occasional violence.
Ervin Laszlo is currently leading the "Ervin Laszlo Forum on Science and Spirituality" on his website -- a place where top scientists and renowned spiritual leaders search for ways to heal the gap between the two cultures by drawing on the latest findings of the sciences and the best insights of spirituality and religion. These posts will carry a logo with the legend "An invited contribution to the Ervin Laszlo Forum on Science and Spirituality."
Follow Ervin Laszlo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ErvinLaszlo
I'd like to add that one of the apparent problems between religion and science is when religion makes a factual claim and science finds evidence contradicting the claim. Either there was a great flood or there wasn't. Either Noah collected two of every species to re-populate the earth post-flood, or he didn't. It can't be both true and untrue. Thus, a scientist holding creationist beliefs is in a pickle.
Pure science doesn't depend on dogma the same way religion does. Science is a method of systematically testing observations. Discoveries and methods are open to falsification though we all know how ornery scientists can get when challenged. But hey, scientists are people too. So when a previous discovery gets discarded, there's a sort of no-hard-feelings sentiment attached.
Anyway, the human mind accommodates conflicting beliefs pretty well. So I guess that gets some of us off the hook eh?
While I agree with the core of your discourse, I wonder at some of the terminology. Definite statements regarding both science and religion are, at best, questionable and often erroneous. It depends on what you mean by science and religion. I recently read the Religion and Science article by Alvin Plantinga at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/ and found it thought provoking.
I have also been reading some of the work scientists are doing w.r.t. black holes, sub-atomic particles, big bang inflation and dark energy(matter) and the controversy surrounding some of the speculations. One of the differences between science and religion is that scientists handle their different views well, maybe because they hope new evidence will resolve any disputes, while some religionists begrudge their differences because there is no hope of finding verifiable evidence.
John Dominic Crossan, a progressive Catholic scholar, wrote in one of his books something along the lines that he thought the Bible stories were written as metaphor and we were dumb enough to take them literally.
I'm not sure what you were addressing when you identified the 'definite statements.' Ironically, I was trying to be indefinite. I suppose I could have been more specific and distinguished between dogmatic (i.e. Christianity) and non-dogmatic (i.e. Zen Buddhist) religions.
At any rate, I'll give the Plantinga piece the college try. I am no philosopher; I have neither the patience nor stomach for it. If it's anything like Kant, it's going to put me in a sour mood, that's for sure ; )
Accuracy and precision are the two qualities I was encouraged to seek in my first science lab. Both are essential to "truth."
The definition of science seems fairly well agreed. So much so that my Oxford Dictionary of Science includes no definition of it, presumably it is intuitively obvious. Alternately, a definition of religion is elusive. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions proffers a ten page discourse on the varieties of meanings as a partial description.
Too often both the anti-science religious and the anti-religion scientist offer their views with an inaccurate and/or imprecise understanding of the disputed field. It lends nothing to clarity, but in time, with patience, those who are truly interested in understanding what is beyond their grasp at present will advance their thinking.
Your NCIS example reminded me of Dragnet's Joe Friday asking for the facts, just the facts. This also reminded me of the fanatic's mantra, "My mind's made up, don't confuse me."
Data gathering on anything can be done scientifically. You develop a theory, create hypotheses, choose your variables, gather your data, then run your statistic and see what happens.
"We are not talking about making science into a religion, or religion into a science. We are talking about finding the unity in diversity that's basic for a healthy community."
Right off the bat you've implied that religion is the same as humanism. They are not the same, and C. P. Snow never said that they were.
I would like to see documentation on this.
Science is observable, consistent, testable, predictable, natural, and tentative. Science doesn't pretend to explain phenomena outside of these parameters. Correct me if I'm mistaken but science has never been 'at war' with religion. The opposite cannot be claimed.
Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4csXJXHVGA
Here is what might be hoped for from Religion????
Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eefSiGb6xh8
All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson
I happen to agree. I think there is a need to open a new and carful dialogue. Could we see this NEW,,, as the Spiritual Scientist??? Maybe?
What about the tolerant and well studied, NEW Spiritually Grounded?
When I read a Topic or a Title: Laszlos’: A MEETING Place for Religion and Science. I take that title to be a type of invitation. Not a dictate or RULE to be broken, but a reference to the discussions to follow.
A meeting, open, tolerant, a place to exchange ideas and thoughts.
@el sistema. See?
Laszlo wites: “HuffPost Religion offers us an opportunity to discuss our worldviews and see how they line up with the view of others. Entering this "worldview café" doesn't need to make you collapse your differences or become dominated by just one kind of view. Instead, it can create a better appreciation of your differences and a greater willingness to live with them. After all, we all share the same planet and would best share it without ignoring, dismissing, or denigrating each other.”
More or less a HOPE.
A meeting place, common ground, a place to find and share and learn.
All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson
What I would like the author (and you, if you support this definition) to do is cite an atheist who holds such a childish views as the one he suggests in the article.
Hmmm, I can't think of it but that's the definition of an atheist.
prove it
Enough with making room for the wackadoodles, already. This argument has grown old and tired.
Better to have cats debating dogs over who makes the best pet. (Dogs, by far)
Oh,, Dogs have their value. “Bark, Bark,, Bark,, Did I do good,, bet I scared them!,, Huh? Do I get some food now??? Did I do good?”
Cats are just more cool about the whole thing.
“Think I will go for a walk” Meeow. “Thanks for opening the door” “Oh,, Not to worry, I will be able to find my own way home,, unlike Fido over there.” “AND when I return I expect my liter box cleaned, my food out, unless you want me to crap all over the place and drag my tail around leaving skid marks on the rug like Fido!” “Yes, if you are nice,, I MIGHT let you pet me.”
Sooo,, what can we say for Science and Religion??? Never to find common ground then??? Sad really!
All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson
Two influences of Reality that seem, seem, seem, diametrically opposed, BOTH filled with assumptions, presuppositions, hypotheses, speculation, tests and proofs, and ERROR sufficient to restock the shelves of Alexandra.
Plot the “X” axis as the empirical, observable, testable and verifiable.
Of the “Y” axis, set the implied, convention, inspired, hoped for, the faith, the myth, the instruction.
The “Vector of Accordance” will strike on its path, Dot, by Dot when the Observed Reality corresponds to the Inspired Instruction.
I will start.
Both would desire to guide AWARE goodness.
Both assume Knowability of Truth.
Both presume that there once was nothingness.
Both teach of an origin to all things.
Both have identified a starting point.
BOTH submit that this force of origin still exists.
Both assert this force of creation permeates all things.
Both see the expressions and understanding of the original cause as essential.
And so on.
Dot,, by Dot,, by Dot.
All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson
Does your supposition include all fields scientific research and how does that compare, or are you just comparing the theory of evolution to religion and making up the rest?
I knew you would show up! YEEEEEEEE!
{{{Big HUGGS}}} >Knute breaks out in dance,,, Yeeeeeeeee!
Welcome, welcome, welcome!!!!! Yeeeeeee!!!!!
All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson
Uhhh? To answer you, I don’t know! Well,,, I have my inclinations and suspicions but I DON’T KNOW. I suppose that is why the “Vector Plot.”
Remember, ANY Vector can also extend into the Negative range of commonalities.
Both seemingly rot with endless attraction to Guru Groupies.
Both show a propensity to Interpretative “Soupe Du Jour”
Both seem quite willing to toss their High Priests under the bus, the first sign of difficulty.
Both would assume they sprang complete and whole, like from the mind of Zeus.
Both are alarmed at their parents always hanging around.
Ok, lets start then, El Sistema,, you plot the commonalities o the “X” axis, I will take the “Y”.
No, oh, no,, you are well studied in the Bible and other sources of theocratic endeavor,, you take the “Y” and I will take the “X”.
There we go! YES! I like that.
All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson