Art De Vany: Science and Religion

« Odds and Ends, Part 3 | Main | Sports and Spines »

Science and Religion

October 19, 2005 10:09 AM

There need be no conflict between science and religion. I, for one, treat them as separate realms of understanding. And, I do not call the realm of non-scientific understanding religion, just faith or intuition in recognition that there are things that lie outside our understanding, at least in the current state of science.

The Dalia Lama is calling for a bit less conflict between science and religion in his new book, The Universe in a Single Atom. Michael Schermer reviews the book for The Skeptics Society. I qoute small sections of his review (which can be found at www.skeptics.com) that make the points I find interesting.

Schermer: "In my book “How We Believe,” I outlined a three-tiered model of the relationship of science and religion: the “conflicting worlds” model, in which science and religion are at war and one must choose between them; the “same worlds” model, in which science and religion are in harmony and one may have both simultaneously; and the “separate worlds” model, in which science and religion are different methods to deal with different areas of human concern. Since that time, hundreds of books have been published in the field of science and religion studies, which has blossomed with its own journals and magazines, college courses, scholarly conferences, and even an annual million-dollar cash prize for the individual who most contributes to uniting science and religion (the Templeton Prize).

From these encounters, as well as his Buddhist studies, the Dalai Lama found a way to harmonize science and religion, even while recognizing (and respecting) their differences. Both science and Buddhism, he points out, share a strong empirical basis:"

The Dalai Lama:

"Buddhism must accept the facts — whether found by science or found by contemplative insights. If, when we investigate something, we find there is reason and proof for it, we must acknowledge that as reality — even if it is in contradiction with a literal scriptural explanation that has held sway for many centuries or with a deeply held opinion or view."

Schermer: "Instead of filtering scientific findings through the sieve of his religion, the Dalai Lama approaches science with humility and openness."

The Dalai Lama: "As my comprehension of science has grown, it has gradually become evident to me that, insofar as understanding the physical world is concerned, there are many areas of traditional Buddhist thought where our explanations and theories are rudimentary when compared with those of modern science."

· Everything

Comments

Posted by: Flower Online at September 11, 2006 2:07 PM

"There need be no conflict between science and religion" - I fully agree with you.

Best regards, Serg

Posted by: Serg at June 5, 2006 5:07 AM

Science and Religion both try to explain reality but are based upon 2 different approaches. Science is based upon falsification, whereas Religion is based upon revealed truths. Neither explain "reality" in its entirety nor will they ever. Having said that, the main problem in the Science v. Religion debates has to do with the fact that most arguments are based upon the Genesis account, in particular, from the English version. However, in the Hebrew text, it aligns rather nicely with what science says, has said, and will say, and all the while the texts have not changed in 3500 years. I recommend the materials from Dr. Roy Blizzard (www.biblescholars.org) who deals with this subject better than anyone I have ever encountered.

Andy

Posted by: Andy at November 21, 2005 4:45 PM

Art,

If you are interested in the topic and you get a chance, you might want to check out my friend Piet Hut's web-site:

http://www.ids.ias.edu/~piet/

You will want to click on the "Kira Institute" link first, most likely.

He is an imminent theoretical physicist, who also works with the Dalai Llama and does research into viewing the world from different perspectives.

Cheers,

A. McGowan

Posted by: A. McGowan at October 20, 2005 10:38 AM

Hello Art--

Arrgh. Few things get my dander up as does the idea of the "conflict" between Science and Religion. The idea that "Science and Religion" are these monolithic, pugilistic entities battling it out for the hearts and minds of all humankind is patently ridiculous.

First of all, get a group of either scientists, or religious practitioners together and ask them some basic question. On anything. If you have ten of either, you will more than likely get ten different answers. Even if the answer from one to another is similar, it will be couched in a different perspective owing to a different context. I've seen the same thing whether talking with eminent scientists, or theologians. There is no entity, no single representative that should speak for "Science," or "Religion." How many practicing Catholic priests, for example, disagree with the Pope, on one point or another?

Science is a practice. Religion is a practice (religion is a slippery word, here, anyway. Perhaps it's better to say "things metaphysical." Anyway...). They are both methods of arriving at ways of making decisions in the world, used by people. And therein lies the key. People are different from one another. A person may choose one, or the other, or both to arrive at knowledge and make decisions about actions they will take (e.g. "How do I design spacecraft?"; "What happens when I die?"; "Should I lie to people?" etc.).

The conflict happens when a person believes that the only way to arrive at viable decision making is through one method and one method only. Often, this type of person is also contemptuous of other types of decision-making, and will out of their arrogance, denigrate the practitioners of another way. I would like to add that a person who is truly extreme in this way is relatively rare, in my observation, but they also tend to have a powerful, forward personality with no worries about advancing their ideas in front of other people. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it's a case of the loudest voice being heard... the squeaky wheel, etc. Much like the journalist who reports sensational news, rather than the everyday, non-sensational happenings that we don't hear about. From these dynamic, but close-minded people we hear of this "Conflict Between Science and Religion." But we tend not to hear about the majority of people who use both science and religion in their daily lives for knowledge and decision-making.

I think the greatest examples of these individuals are some of the founders of what we think of modern science, today. Think Newton, Leibniz, Galileo, etc. Many, if not most of these Natural Philosophers were strongly religious people, believing in God. And to them, the greatest way for them to honor their God was to explore, understand and explain the created world--however it was created, whatever rules it functioned by. And if that came into conflict with the teachings of a particular church or religion... well, so be it.

And think further up the line to Einstein and modern Nobel Laureates. They didn't always agree on the science, or the religion. But so many are believers in a divine, or a metaphysical.

I myself (no Nobel Laureate, mind you :) grew up in a fairly strict protestant religious household. I grew up fascinated with science for the very same reason as those early Natural Philosophers--wonder about God's creation. I've done a lot of things since those days, and a lot of my spiritual beliefs have changed with learning and experience and time, but I'm still fascinated and work in a high-technology area (a lab, as a matter of fact), and I still don't see a conflict.

Apologize for the long post (my $0.02 plus some inflation :), and thanks for all your work, Art. I've been keeping tabs on your Evolutionary Fitness ideas (plus some of your others) for a while, and I purchased Chapter One. Keep up the good work!

wtc

Posted by: Amphibiman at October 19, 2005 10:14 PM

Science and Religion

October 19, 2005 10:09 AM

Comments

Post a comment