Well, I have known your individual proclivity toward the inclusiveness of religion and science for some time. I think, as well, that you are not unaware of my personal sympathy for such ideas as are found in Teilhard, Berkeley, or QM. I have also read the Tao of Physics, the Dancing Wu Li's and such, and have some measure of awe.
I still think, however, that there is a fundamental schism between religion and science, and that what we find as inspiring in science IS science and not religion. I don't personally believe in the existence of the supernatural...only in the unknown. Oh, I see you have covered that with "Science fills the cracks of God".
This article indicates how religion is being absorbed by science...and why. I am posting a separate article to Neocon which you will find very interesting, I think...
determinism.com
Media and other commentators have focused recently on the decline of traditional religions in America. The standard explanation of this phenomenon is usually some combination of TV, feminism and the demands of a busy life. However, a more compelling explanation is that there is a growing stress between the unyielding precepts of the Judeo-Christian religions (literally carved in stone) and the overwhelming scientific evidence that contradicts those religions. To many, the old religions have become unworkable or impractical. Some continue to identify themselves as belonging to an organized religion, but relegate that religion to a separate, perhaps once a week, part of their lives. Others give up entirely on traditional religions and search for a new way to express their spiritual feelings.
This essay will propose a new reason for the failure of traditional religions: the displacement of religious beliefs by science. It will then look at a different option, an expressly scientific religion. As a prelude, let's create a fictional, sophisticated and objective recluse who has never heard of organized religion. What might he observe upon first learning about the Earth's historical and contemporary organized religions? His first reaction might be to note that one man's religion is another man's fable. For example, the Navajo view of man's beginnings is a "creation story" to a Christian. Our hermit might also observe that some religions flourish for a time, then fade into history to become "myths," as with the religion of the Romans. Finally, while contemporary commentators tend to focus on similarities among organized religions, our hermit might recognize that different religions have some very different views of important aspects of human existence -- are we born in sin; do we sin by thinking certain thoughts, or not; are we reincarnated, or do we live once here and eternally in heaven; is there a savior who redeems our sins; has he been here; will he be back; are we superior to other animals? Large numbers of religious people disagree with followers of different religions on these critical issues.
After contemplating the mishmash of religions, our objective observer might conclude that, just as scientific theories, art, philosophy and law reflect different understandings of the world and evolve over time, so do religions.
RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE, OR RELIGION IS SCIENCE?
Our fictional observer can now be replaced by the author, who will argue that religion and science are one in the same: both are attempts to explain the universe and man's role in it. Although today we generally think of science as explaining natural events, religions have traditionally fulfilled this role. Religions formerly explained earthquakes, floods, plagues and comets. I am hardly the first to observe a congruence of science and religion. A medieval Pope recognized it when he excommunicated Galileo for maintaining the Earth was not at the center of the universe.
In a similar manner, human physiology and psychology have long been the province of religion. Religion has historically explained left-handedness, stuttering, madness, plagues and other aspects of the human condition. Now we look to psychology, one of the newest sciences, to understand the ways we feel and act. The need for possession by demons or curses to explain certain behavior is therefore largely diminished. There is now a near universal agreement that scientists describe and explain both human behavior and natural events more accurately than priests. When a scientific explanation of a previously mysterious phenomenon becomes so widely accepted that the phenomenon no longer appears to be unexplainable magic, "science" has supplanted "religion."
The overlap and resulting stresses between science and traditional religion remain. In 1999, Kansas rejected the teaching the theory of evolution on religious grounds. One year before that, a nationally known religious leader claimed storms in the United States would stop if President Clinton atoned. The current Pope and other religious leaders object to abortion based in part on a definition of when human life begins -- a scientific question. AIDS is a new plague, and not well understood. It also relates to a traditional taboo of certain organized religions, homosexuality. As a result, some adherents to traditional religions attempt to explain the AIDS epidemic in religious terms, although a scientific explanation is also available.
Looking at all religions as science leads us to see religions as belief systems that describe man and the world as best as can be done at a particular time from a specific point of view. Perhaps the only distinction between historical religions and science is that a good scientist recognizes the truth of the foregoing definition for science, whereas religions typically fix certain working theories forever, as divine truths. The claim to divine truths helps explain the centrality of faith to traditional religions. Religious faith is often defined as belief in something despite the absence of supporting objective evidence. Sadly, by extolling the importance of faith, historical religions cast as a virtue refraining from the use of critical powers of reasoning.
Thus, the falling popularity of traditional religions is perhaps best explained by the ever decreasing realm of the unknown, combined with a growing understanding of natural events and human actions and feelings by natural causes, rather than by magic, miracle or divine intervention. Indeed, a fundamental shift has occurred. In the not too distant past, mankind was oriented toward explaining what it could not understand by using the idea of magic or gods. Now, we assume there is a scientific explanation for almost everything -- in some cases the explanation simply has not yet been discovered. The stress of reality, as explained by science, clashing with ancient religious explanations may be too great for most people to bear. Because our everyday world is more real to us and in many ways quite different from the ancient stories (and largely mysterious natural and psychological world) which form the basis for traditional religions, the value of those stories lessens and people fall away from the religions founded on them. People leave religions for the same reasons they abandon disproved scientific theories.
CREATING AN EXPRESSLY SCIENTIFIC RELIGION
If we accept the idea that religion is an attempt to make sense of what we experience, then we can await the possible unstructured evolution of a new religion. Alternatively, we may create a contemporary religion based, not on magic, but on our scientific understandings. The challenge here is to mimic our fictional recluse and start objectively with a clean slate.
So what does a scientific religion look like? The foundation stone of this religion -- and the only aspect of it that we must take on faith -- is that the primary means of understanding human nature and the universe is through science. Thus, the scientific method governs. That method requires that we treat all ideas as hypotheses that may be modified or discarded as they are tested by experiments and/or experience, and as new evidence becomes available. Our beliefs simply represent our best understanding of reality today. Consequently, no other "commandments" or beliefs are immutable.
The first postulate of our new religion is the fundamental precept of all modern science -- the law of cause and effect. While this principle is not the subject of much debate in the scientific or medical communities, it has some revolutionary implications in the field of religion and human nature. Most importantly, if people are not exempt from the laws of cause and effect, there is no such thing as "free will." Rather, human behavior, thoughts and feelings (like everything else in nature) are exclusively the result of one's genes and experiences. Our scientific religion must adopt this view, known as "determinism," as the only sensible way to understand how we work, and dismiss as nonsensical the existence of free will that is independent of one's determinants.
Certain feelings and behaviors are genetically coded into all animals. Humans are particularly complex and adaptable. Thus, as we learn from our experiences (be the lessons beneficial to us or the reverse), this learning also has a large impact on our feelings and behavior. Further, many determinants are in our unconscious -- put simply, we are unaware of them. When we make a choice, it is the result of our conscious thoughts, beliefs, etc., as well as unconscious ones which play a role we do not even experience contemporaneously (perhaps the role may be inferred in hind-sight). In this way, our behavior is always determined by prior events and the resultant beliefs we hold, and genes.
A belief in determinism does not deny that we make conscious choices. It means simply that the reasons we act a certain way are beyond our control. As Schopenhauer put it, "A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills." A deterministic understanding of humans does not equate with a view that our lives are predetermined, or fated. It means only that, despite our feeling that we have a choice and can act as we please, each of our thoughts, feelings and decisions is the inexorable result of determinants.
If we adopt determinism, then a few conclusions must follow. First, it makes sense to have a fundamental respect and compassion, for all feelings and behavior. This is not to say that we find all feelings and acts equally desirable or appealing. However, if someone is forced to look ugly by his genes, or to act boorish or even dangerously, we can at least recognize that he is forced to do both by his determinants. Put another way, if we had the same genes and experiences as that person, we could only look and act the same way.
If this is the case, then where do guilt and shame fit in? Nowhere. For if all acts and feelings are determined and out of our control, then guilt and shame are irrational. These feelings are neurotic, and are based only in a misperception of reality. Although some tout these feelings as useful for controlling unwanted behavior, they are an inefficient means of doing so. The less guilt and shame one has, the more likely he is to have self love and an accompanying compassion for others; he is therefore less likely to be harmful to the rest of us. Although we have defined guilt and shame as undesirable, as members of this new religion we can certainly regret behavior which causes others or ourselves undue pain. Conversely, we can enjoy our good fortune when we are forced to act in a way which furthers our interests in a fruitful fashion. However, feeling pride in our accomplishments makes as little sense as feeling shame about our failures.
As most theologians acknowledge, there is scant scientific evidence supporting the existence of any divinity--and certainly no credible or reproducible evidence favoring the existence of any particular god. (If numbers count, then the Buddhists have it -- but we are starting fresh here). So, there is no room in our new religion for any kind of a traditional, anthropomorphic god. At best, we can acknowledge that the laws of nature rule the universe and us, as part of it. In that sense only, nature (or mother nature) can be viewed as god. However, we aim to understand nature, not to worship or pray to it. We leave the as yet unsolved mysteries to future scientists to solve, rather than attributing them to the divine.
It follows from the foregoing that all children are born innocent. The concept of original sin has no more of a place in our religion than does a belief in the efficacy of curses. Indeed, because no divinity is setting the rules and all of our internal workings and behavior (including lust, anger, envy, murder) are the result of our determinants, the concept of "sin" makes no sense.
What about an afterlife, future lives, the existence of an eternal soul? Other than wishful thinking that a reward awaits us for doing things we don't want to do (or perhaps more insidiously, behavior control by threat of eternal punishment), there is no good reason to believe that any of these exist. So what is the purpose of life, or as some ask, why were we put here? There is no "official" purpose of life, other than that the laws of nature favor the continued evolution of our species. For an individual, the purpose of life is perhaps best defined as the intelligent pursuit of one's own happiness. Of course, we must place this view in the context that, like many other animals, humans are social creatures. One very important part of a happy life is the ability to earn love from other people, which we can only do by treating them well.
A related observation is that, unless physically forced, our behavior is always in response to our perceived self-interest. There is no such thing as a "selfless" act. For example, a martyr gives his life because he wants to, whether because of his sense of identity, wanting a happy afterlife or wishing to be well remembered. Of course, the key word in the first sentence of this paragraph is "perceived." All of us have acted in a way that we perceived as being in our self-interest, only to find out later that it was not. Neurosis or mere errors based on misinformation can lead to a failure to act in what is truly one's best self-interest.
In sum, our new religion posits that desirable and healthy behavior consists of asserting one's self interest effectively, while also treating others with tolerance and compassion.
WHY A NEW RELIGION?
It is important to address the question, "why have a new religion?" Of course, the first thing to do with this question is to point out that it is also asking why we need science. The answer to both queries is straightforward. First, we are curious to understand the universe and ourselves. Curiosity and the resulting search for knowledge about the universe and ourselves have always been and remain important to civilized people. Second, a religion that seeks truthful answers to important issues of human existence helps people make important life decisions based on the best information available, rather than on outdated or disproved principles or beliefs. This religion therefore minimizes suffering and conflict, and enables us to lead happier and more effective lives. Finally, a religion that is at peace with science and need not resort to magic offers a sense of order to thoughtful individuals who are uncomfortable with dogmatic and outdated religions that clash with the rest of their lives.
An expressly scientific religion has no use for the trappings of most other religions such as authoritarian rules, rituals, tithes, communal living or perfect leaders. However, since it addresses basic issues of human existence and happiness, albeit through the scientific method, the new religion discussed in this essay is as much a religion as any -- and perhaps the only modern religion. Because this new religion does not claim it is ordained by a god or guarantees a happy afterlife, the only reason for anyone to adopt it is that he or she agrees it makes sense.
The author is a psychotherapist, a lawyer, and a member of the Society of Natural Science. That religious and scientific organization was founded in 1985 by Peter Lawrence Gill, Ph.D. and several of his students/colleagues in order to provide like-minded individuals with a better understanding of themselves and a sense of community. Dr. Gill first envisioned a truly scientific religion in the late 1970's. I gratefully credit him with originating many of the concepts discussed in this essay and with weaving them into a coherent framework.
Had I been extolling traditional thoughts and beliefs it would not be important to reveal my religious affiliation, be it Catholic, Baptist, or Jewish. Moreover, I am concerned that such information may be a distraction or close the minds of some readers who fear that anyone who belongs to a "different" religion is in a cult and is recruiting new members. I hope such suspicions are minimized when the religion is not divinely revealed, values critical reasoning, rejects worship of any particular person and is always open to change and revision. |
