The real issue lies not between religion and science but between belief and experience. Both disciplines ought to be understood in the light of man's search for permanent truths. Both, however -- and to some extent surprisingly so -- have relied too heavily on dogmas and dogmatism. In science, revolutionary scientific ideas are often laughed out of court by "the old guard" -- to be accepted in time, however, after old dogmas have been replaced by new discoveries -- becoming in their turn, of course, new scientific dogmas.
In one respect the difference between science and religion is noteworthy: Scientific circles have yet to form bodies of hoary elders whose self-appointed role is to dictate absolutely what shall and shall not be accepted as the right beliefs. The pressure of accepted opinion, however, is almost as strong in science as in religion, and acts with as much authority as any church.
For dogmatism is a phenomenon of human nature, not of human activity. The search for truth must move from blind belief to direct experience. Up to the present time, modern science -- perhaps mainly because it was born of fresh seeking and not of oft-repeated formulae -- has had the upper hand. I myself, on the other hand, am someone who began his search for truth through the sciences, but I gradually shifted my focus to the quest for God. And I have thought much about the comparative value of seeking truth outwardly rather than inwardly. Let me add here, however, that I myself am not particularly religious. That is to say, I am not much interested in rituals intended only to propitiate God.
The first point of difference between the so-called mystic and the scientific is that logic, without feeling, can never be wholly satisfying. Logic watches, whereas feeling absorbs itself in the experience of what has been watched. A computer can be programmed to reason clearly, but it cannot be made to enjoy any of its conclusions. Nor can it be programmed to ask the deeper questions of life: the "whys." Calm feeling is not an emotion, and instead of prejudicing reason, it clarifies it. Logic can make a reasonable case for almost any argument, but only calm feeling can know whether that reasoning is true or false. Logic -- speaking for the moment musically -- can find the notes, but only feeling can arrange them in a satisfying sequence of notes, chords, and rhythms.
The materialistic sciences, in their search for abstract facts, cannot easily arrange those facts in the order of their importance to mankind. There is, moreover, another and equally important difference between the mystic's and the materialist's search for truth: the materialist tries to eliminate self-awareness as prejudicial to clear judgment. The true mystic, on the other hand, tries to clear his sense of selfhood from prejudices by saying (I think more honestly), "Without self-awareness, where can one even begin the search for what would be interesting to anyone?"
An ice-covered lake would be difficult to break through by the application of pressure to the whole surface. By drilling at a single point, however, the ice can be penetrated easily, to reach the water underneath it. Science may indeed penetrate the coating over reality at any number of points, but without the ego-self as a point of reference, all that anyone can arrive at is a hodgepodge of irrelevant facts. It is unrealistic to try to eliminate either feeling or self-awareness from any investigation into reality. The ancient Greek saying "Know thyself" (gnothi sauton) remains the ultimate and highest definition of any sincere search for truth.
Scientists tend to believe that truth is infinitely complex. In this belief, there is a present-day dogma that claims that computers will someday become sophisticated enough to be self-aware. What, however, can be simpler than the common earthworm? If one touches the worm with a pin, however, the little creature will try (because it is self-aware) to squirm away; and, because its awareness is centered in feeling, it will obviously desire to escape the pain of a pin prick.
The definition that the ancient Indian yogi-sage Patanjali gave of yoga (the supreme union of absolute understanding) was this: "Yogas chitta vritti nirodha." Translated, the definition is, "Yoga is the neutralization of the vortices of feeling." A "vritti" is an eddy or whirlpool. "Chitta" has been translated -- inadequately, however -- as consciousness. I say "inadequately" because what the word really refers to is the feeling aspect of consciousness.
Science does not concentrate on feelings. It merely explains things. Logic alone, moreover, doesn't inspire enthusiasm for anything. Science tries to eliminate all emphasis on the self, as well as on feeling, but without self-awareness, one's efforts would lack any focus. The mystical search for truth is an inquiry into one's true place in the great scheme of things, and into ways of fulfilling one's role here on earth.
Many years ago, a man in Australia said to me, "I am an atheist. How can you explain God to me in such a way as to make me respect, or even listen to, what you are saying?"
I replied, "Why don't you try thinking of God as the highest potential you can imagine for yourself?"
For a moment the man looked taken aback. He then commented somewhat grudgingly, "Well, yeah, I think I can live with that!"
In the context of this article, it doesn't really matter whether or not God exists any more than it matters how high a mountain slope rises above any low mists hanging overhead. True mysticism seeks to climb ever upward, until endlessness is achieved. Materialistic science so far has been interested only in examining rocks on the slopes beneath us. Whereas true mysticism is motivated by upwardly aspiring ideals, materialistic science tries, instead, to keep man satisfied with objects he sees already on the hillside.
Someday, true science and true religion together, in their desire for truth, will discover those eternal verities that alone possess the secret of unity in a single vision.
An invited contribution to the Ervin Laszlo Forum on Science and Spirituality.
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Albert Einstein: Religion and Science
Conflict & agreement between science and religion
Insofar as you want to call "belief" a "discipline", that's probably half-true, but seeing experience (the other discipline) as a "search for permanent truth" seems strange to say the least.
If science taught us anything, then it is that "permanent truth" as the goal of intellectual activity is fundamentally misguided, and that our notion of truth is always partial, incomplete, and subject to revision. And that there is a lot more to be learned about the world and ourselves by committing to this project of permanent revision of our "sketch" of the truth than there is by trying to nail down some allegedly "permanent truth" only to see it fall apart and having to cling to it beyond reason as it does.
Science is non-dogmatic not because scientists are more reasonable people than theologians, but because science is based on pure logic because of what it is and what it does. If the logic is shown to be wrong, it is wrong. There is no magnanimity involved.
position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view
from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are
human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time
something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address
"The search for truth must move from blind belief to direct experience." Yeah, well some guys dont want to bother. If you do not give man a god, he will make a god of a man, like Stalin or Mao. And if you give him an alpha male tyrant like Jehovah, Jesus, or Allah, that concept will justify anything done in his name.
But if you give him a goddess, Such as Kali outlined by the hymns of Saint Ramprasad, who draws the attention of violent men with sexy Shakti, who also employ sacred psychedelics, the Tantric -experience- will spiritually enlighten him, and he is no longer a follower of demagoguery.
Funny no socialist has ever read about this or tried the experiment to see if it does, in fact, as Saint Ramprasad said hundreds of years ago, spiritually enlighten men. Its a very ancient tradition; you'd think they would've stumbled across it.
Has no sociologist/psychologist ever read Gilgamesh? Or did they all forget his sidekick Ekidnu was "tamed" by a Shakti in a goddess temple? Or is ending terrorism above their pay grade?
"People" can be dogmatic and insert their dogmatic beliefs into the respective disciplines.
Hopefully neither science nor religion is arrogant or opinionated.
But people, that's a horse of an entirely different color.
There are some scientist who hold dogmatic beliefs.
There are some religious organizers who hold dogmatic beliefs.
They are the ones who make it difficult for everyone else.
(1) Science is the endeavor that seeks to understand the underpinnings of experiences, validate reasons and conclusions about experiences, and predict happenings we can experience and even those we as humans cannot experience. It uses a rigorous process called the scientific method. It follows the facts and has no dogma. It only deals in things that can be falsified by definition. Nothing is sacred or beyond being thrown away if the method falsifies it. But my main point is: science appreciates and studies ALL REAL things and experiences (things that can be tested). Supposed phenomena that has no basis it can test (that is no basis for testing by definition: e.g., someone's version of a god that chooses to not submit itself to testing as most Abrahamic religions define their god) to science is just a fantasy and it will move on from it to useful work. Religion and mystics stay stuck trying to defend and support the untestable with their revelations and feelings.
(2) It is not illusion that the scientific method evaluates experiences and concludes useful things. And science evaluates the same experiences as mystics. It is just that science seeks testable reasons and answers. That is MEANINGFUL to living in a real world. Experiencing illness and then saying there are demons causing it to me is not as meaningful as Germ Theory.
I agree that science is useful and meaningful, and I think ignoring science is a sign of a "psychological dysfunction" and an impairment to living a full life.
Oh, I don't know. It has about as much meaning as hearing "Its caused by a virus."
Might as well be a 'demon' with that explanation.
"Virus" is a medical term indicating "I don't know what it is but let's try this and if
that doesn't work, we'll try something else."
Science strives to be an open process and expects - no demands - proper scientific challenges - and is gleeful when a better "truth for the moment" is found.
Yes scientists are human and live and work in environments that are not pure. They sometimes have motivations and loyalties that are not consistent with the rules. And sometimes mistakes are made. But the scientific process endures and a vast disinterested community in time corrects the defects. That is what we know of the process confirmed by history - past and in the making.
What is dogma in your context re: science? what in science is dogmatic as you proclaimed?
If you are saying the politics of allocating resources sometimes cuts off some good research (topics and people) then I would agree that happens. If you are saying sometimes the establishment stifles a plebe scientist then I would agree that happens. But this is not dogma -- this is - well - politics at work - and others and I have pointed out - science self-corrects eventually to drive toward what fits the evidence and works best.
Technology on the other hand - the implementation of science - is a much more economic and cunning endeavor - more inclined to be guided by gurus, smoke and
"Science strives to be an open process and expects - no demands - proper scientific challenges..."
That is your opinion of what science should be, not necessarily what it is.
Demands? Isn't that a little dogmatic?
Dogmatic: asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner.
"Facts are a very handy but weak brew of reality. They immediately consign certain kinds of experiences as real and others as not."
There are no sects in geometry.
Religion is only understood by those who have lost the power of reason.
Sect and error are synonymous.
Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire, 1764
Science is process of crafting a narrative from the observable data. Religion, traditionally, is a process of taking an existing narrative and attempting to see how observable data makes sense within that framework.
The error in your comparison is to say, it is equivalent between religion and science when some old guard didn't accept some new idea.
Actually, revolutionary scientific ideas might be laughed at by an old guard, but if they account for observable facts,. they are usually published. Laughed at or not, if a theory accounts for a large majority of the facts, then the time it takes to become accepted by other scientists is radically fast - if compared to the speed of change in religion.
And so we can see that advances in cosmological understanding languished for centuries, as seekers attempted to conform the observable data into the religious narrative. But once people stepped outside of the religious narrative, and attempted to craft theories based on the data, cosmology flourished.
The same is true for biology, chemistry, and psychology.
The religious "method" is far inferior to the scientific method at handling "new ideas" and overstepping the "old guard".
Oh. There's a goal, all right. Endlessness.
I'll take vanilla.
Hey, if I expose a plant to sunlight from a constant direction it reacts by directing growth towards it... plants must be self aware too! They obviously KNOW the sun is there and they DECIDE to do something about it! It's certainly not an automatic unthinking reaction to applied external stimuli... no sir, that's silly. Them's thinking plants!