A Review of the Religion and Science Forum in NYC

Religion and science have endured a rocky relationship over the centuries. However, this last June 5th, proponents of religion and science formed a panel for discussion at the World Science Festival in NYC. Bill Blakemore, a News Reporter for ABC, moderated the forum at NYU's Rosenthal Pavilion. A large audience filled the auditorium. After 2 hours of enquiry and response, I began my 5 hour return trek home and contemplated a fact agreed upon by the panel members; religion and science are modes of perceptions, not means of conflict.

It is always unfortunate when those involved in a relationship stop working together and start denying one another. Whereas, these panel members showed that religion and science can cooperate with one another. Religious advocate, Elaine Pagels, whose works have changed the historical landscape of the Christian religion by exploding the myth of the early Church as a unified movement, pointed out the usefulness of avoiding certainties. Dogma and theories are not certain.

A question came from the audience, How does bowing down to some god ever advance humanity's progress? Paul Davies, Cosmologist and Astrobiologist, was the panel member who answered. Although not a religious person, Davies admitted deep respect for one of his colleagues, a practicing Jew. "She is a brilliant scientist," Davies remarked. Her spiritual practices were recognized as a choice of discipline that obviously gave her intellectual inspiration.

Fransisco Ayala, a biological scientist, and an ordained priest, noted there is more to life than science. The moral, ethical, and transcending matters also concern the welfare of humanity. In the relationship of religion and science, each has a unique place. Science encourages the dismissal of superstition. Religion is a means by which a spiritual dimension can be explored. They offend each other less when they don't claim to be something they are not.

Thupten Jinpa, a principal English translator to the Dalai Lama, also spoke with scientific eloquence. Jinpa, a practicing Buddhist, was asked why the Dalai Lama sent monks to the USA to participate in research involving brain-imaging. His response, in essence, affirmed his faith and confidence in contemplative disciplines, especially Buddhism, and also recognized the value of engaging science because the scientific worldview is influential. Brain scans did reveal the brains of monks, with incredible numbers of hours of meditation under their belts, produced powerful gamma activity. It was also noted that meditation had altered the structure and function of their brains. Will science pinpoint spiritual experiences, commonly felt by religionists?

It is a step-by-step process and we can be patient with one another. From the 21st Century revision of Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health, "For centuries-yes, always-natural science has not really been considered a part of any religion, Christianity not an exception. Even now many people consider science to have no proper connection with faith and spirituality. However, mystery does not insulate Christ's teachings. Truth's instructions are not theoretical and fragmentary, but are predisposed to the scientific method, are practical, and complete; and being practical and complete, they are not deprived of their essential vitality."

With this all said and done, I think back on what has been recorded about Christ Jesus. Admittedly, there wasn't the science fervor going on as we know it today, however, Jesus evidently had no problem with practicing scientists. Christ called on Luke, a professional doctor, to be one of his disciples and Luke followed cooperatively.

As we utilize the mode of religion or science to uncover the deeper schemes of reality, we can experience a working relationship until the universe is better understood. In the meantime, we also can experience the essential vitality of discovering practical, worthwhile answers for the problems at hand. Spiritual experiences, and constructive knowledge, are discoverable, because they exist.

Cheryl Petersen has updated and revised Mary Baker Eddy's book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures." The modern version, "21st Century Science and Health," explaining metaphysical healing, can be found online HealingScienceToday.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Science, Philosophy, Religion and the Unity of Truth

Science has discovered that the universe is vastly more immense than we have ever imagined. It is now generally believed that our most advanced instruments cannot probe the ultimate depths of the cosmos. Moreover, when science examines the quantum levels of the very, very small to find the ultimate source of matter, its instruments fail again. With a straight face, scientists report back to us that matter comes into being from "nothing," and we had better get used to it.

However, to the philosopher, this idea is a self-evident fallacy. And the philosopher would argue that the domain of such speculation belongs to philosopher, not the scientist. The theologian also has a dog in this fight. To the theologian, matter comes from God, the first source and Creator of the universe.

Who are we to believe? And should there not be a unity to truth? Yes, it is the cardinal premise of this article that there is, indeed a unity to truth. What is true in science, must also be true in religion. And, what is true in religion, cannot be at odds with what is provable to the techniques of science. It is the task of the philosopher to synthesize and unify the valid findings of science and religion toward the task of finding more and more unity of truth.

All three of these disciplines, science, philosophy, and religion lay claim to truth. In broadest terms, science is the domain of material reality, the domain of what is. Religion is the domain of values, or what ought to be. And philosophy is the domain of getting from what is to what ought to be. Long ago Aristotle divided these three disciplines into logic tight compartments. This idea worked, or seemed to work, for two thousand years. But now these logic tight compartments retard progress.

As the legendary psychologist Abraham Maslow put it, "I [have] pointed out that both orthodox science and orthodox religion have been institutionalized and frozen into a mutually excluding dichotomy. This separation into Aristotelian aand not-ahas been almost perfect... Every question, every answer, every method, every jurisdiction, every task has been assigned to either one or the other, with practically no overlaps. One consequence is that they are both pathologized, split into sickness, ripped apart into a crippled half-science and a crippled half-religion."

Am I contending, then, that our advancing civilization has developed a crippled half-science and a crippled half-religion? Yes, that is exactly what I am contending.

Science, unable to probe further into material reality, now speculates and postulates theories that are more bizarre than the religions it often contends with. For its part, evolutionary religion has often morphed pure, wholesome revelation into myriads of stultifying, man-made structures of ritual, fear and superstition.

The way out of this morass is to first realize that science and religion need each other. Second, we must recognize that we need not be helpless victims of the opinions and assumptions of so-called experts. As laypersons, we have access, within ourselves, to a resource of uncommon sense. By wise and prudent use of this resource, we can demonstrate our own inner reality-response to what we recognize as either viable or nonsense. If we are in touch with, and trust in, the authenticity of our inner feelings, we can reasonably consider expert opinions, but not be intimidated or overwhelmed by them.

But, aren't these learned experts in science and religion smarter than us? They well may be, in a sense. But their conclusions are too often warped and hidebound to fit into the logic-tight compartments that were artificially created by Aristotle so long ago.

For example, one of the foremost thinkers of our time, Louis J. Halle, fully supported the Aristotelian precept that science must restrict itself to explain reality by using only the observed operations of the laws of nature. Then he goes on to say that the origin and development of life on earth is explained by science as a "haphazard collection of coincidences" that "gradually assume an ever more compelling direction." How likely is this to happen without the invisible hand of a Creator? Halle concludes it would be as if a mass of various shaped stones rolled down a mountain in a landslide and formed themselves into a duplicate of the Parthenon. But, he admonishes us that science must attempt to explain this "by the operation of natural laws alone." Halle never really tells us why science must be so restricted. Is it simply because Aristotle said so?

Another esteemed scientific mind, Stephen Hawking, claims that matter emerged into the universe from "nothing." Carl Sagan agreed. (When Hawking and Sagan speculate such things they are not doing science they are attempting philosophy. And no philosopher would agree that matter emerging from nothing is possible.) Finally, Sagan once wrote that, according to quantum theory: "Once in a very great while your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning in the street." He went further, stating sternly that if you refuse to believe that, "you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the universe."

Certainly these gentlemen are smarter than I will ever be, but my "reality-response" meter goes off when they conclude what seems to me to be nonsense. So, how would I explain the mysterious way the very small quantum world has been proven to defy time, space and logic? My theory is that we are looking into timeless, spaceless, outermost fringes of the Creator's mind from which measurable time and space emerge. A pretty far out idea, perhaps, but in my judgment less so than the conclusions reached above.

Larry Mullins is the author of The MetaValues Breakthrough. This book challenges the conventional wisdom that self-actualizers are super-people who live on sustained peak levels of productivity and consciousness unattainable by the average person. Brushing aside modern ideas that confuse platitudes with the highest values, The MetaValues Breakthrough brings what Abraham Maslow called his most important findings back to life. Virtually any individual can access the inexhaustible power of MetaValues. Knowing how to do this, aspiring actualizers no longer be the helpless victims of the volatile ebb and flow of ordinary motivation. Although most of us may have been underestimated and sold short, it is not too late. Even a meaningless life of stultifying boredom can be swiftly converted into a quest toward actualizing some personal mission... a worthy vision or dream... that is not yet a material reality, but ought to be. http://LarryMullins.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Religion, Science, and Truth

Organized religion and the hard sciences add to our stash of knowledge. Unfortunately, part of this knowledge is only religious fervor or junk science; in other words, human knowledge-information twisted by politics, personal ideologies, or money. Basically, human information is not scientific; therefore, humanity can get bogged down by the fervor and junk until we realize truth is not defined by human knowledge. By it's own authority, scientific knowledge reveals itself.

When human knowledge is passed off as scientific knowledge, we cram our heads full of data without coming to a practical truth. We search out specialists who have few answers. Or, we prime experts whose expertise is obsolete within days, or centuries. However, in the middle of all this questionable fuss, scientific knowledge surfaces and becomes undeniable, because it is self-revealed. Take the example of progress.

Many of us have figured out that real progress is not measured by material assets, worldly power, or status. Although we sometimes are reluctant to admit it, a powerful knowledgeable human being is not progress, but is an exclusive, unsatisfied, and sometimes disastrous mortal life experience. It becomes apparent that progress is greater than something measurable-greater than human knowledge. So, we get the courage to develop and practice the immeasurable traits of honesty, wisdom, fairness, industriousness, etc., and scientific progress is felt. Substantially. We will not trade holistic health, or a peace of mind, for a new faster car.

A theologian or a scientist recognizes scientific knowledge by means of practice, not because of religions or the hard sciences. Therefore, it is unnecessary to have the divide and conquer attitude which pits religion and science against each other. Demonstration excels above words, no matter who is demonstrating. One methodology is not better than the other as a source of information. Jeffery Kluger wrote in Time magazine article The Biology of Belief, "It's the result, not the source, that counts the most." (2/23/09 edition)

If we boil religions and sciences down to the sludge, we find they both are looking for a scientific cause. Call the cause, God, or call it a physical law, however, neither cause is understood scientifically by human beings. So, neither have a right to proclaim to be an authority on the Science of Truth.

We still need answers, and we need dynamic answers. Modern religion and science can aid in discovering answers. However, if they dig in their heels and insist that human knowledge is scientific truth: then one answer is exchanged for 3 more questions; accusations of damnation get thrown around; divisive fear is instigated; and an association between religion and science is regarded as dangerous.

The only danger is going along with the hype. The egocentric human mind wastes colossal time and effort believing the unbelievable; theorizing; being pious; performing intellectual studies or ceremonies; and accumulating a bulk of statistics. Has all this human knowledge brought heaven on earth? Not really. Do human facts offer proof that life or nature is really understood? Not really.

So, the pursuit for more knowledge continues.

It has been accepted by some people that religion and science can work together in this pursuit of better knowledge. This is fine as long as both systems aim to move forward in logical and inspired thought, instead of amassing all their human convictions and information as though now the human knowledge will be scientific. Scientific knowledge can't be stuffed into human knowledge, no matter how large the stash of information. Human knowledge never has been and never will be scientific. However, through reason and insight, human knowledge, put to the test, expands out of itself and we glimpse scientific knowing. This advancement in true knowledge can be accomplished in religion and the hard sciences.

The western scientific method is a useful technique, developed by the hard sciences. Dr. Richard Sloan, Ph.D. describes science in his book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, "Simply put, science is an organized, systematic approach to acquiring knowledge about natural phenomena." Well, religion can also be an organized, systematic approach to acquiring knowledge about the natural phenomena of existence. Basically, the hard sciences have no monopoly on the use of a logical scientific method. Consequently, religion has no monopoly on the use of insight or inspiration. The problem is when we start acquiring knowledge about unnatural phenomena.

The way I see it is: religion has been so closely identified with endorsing human ethics to be truth that it can hardly sense its practical scientific potential. And, the hard sciences have been so repeatedly identified with variable physical laws that it can scarcely receive constantly self-revealing truth.

Truth is not confined to religious beliefs. Scientific knowledge isn't defined by physical facts. Textbook, 21st Century Science and Health, originally written by religious leader, and scientist of truth, Mary Baker Eddy, in the 19th century, says, "For centuries-yes, always-natural science has not really been considered a part of any religion, Christianity not an exception. Even now many people consider science to have no proper connection with faith and spirituality. However, mystery does not insulate Christ's teachings. Truth's instructions are not theoretical and fragmentary, but are predisposed to the scientific method, are practical, and complete; and being practical and complete, they are not deprived of their essential vitality."

Human knowledge is useful only when it is allowed to expand out of itself through demonstration. Religions and the hard sciences, in a reasonable and perceptive fashion, can participate in demonstration, because scientific truth is self-revealed to the logical and open minded theologian and scientist. And, since scientific knowledge can't be monopolized, it is also revealed to the child care provider, child, ditch digger, garbage collector, clown, technician, roof repairer, weatherperson, counselor, hiker, etc.

Cheryl Petersen advocates spiritual thought before action. Her website http://www.HealingScienceToday.com offers "21st Century Science and Health," an eBook that explains a practical metaphysical approach to everyday human situations.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Harvard Creates Science and Religion Chair

Theologian Harvey Cox, who chronicled the rising popularity of religion studies in his 2004 book When Jesus Came to Harvard, may need to write a sequel: When Jesus Came to Harvard and Taught Science.

That's because Harvard Divinity School, where Cox teaches, has accepted an endowment from alumnus Richard T. Watson to create a Professorship of Science and Religion. The school is now searching for a visiting professor in science-and-religion for the 2006-2007 academic year.

The appointment, so far, has caused few ripples -- a noticeable change from 2002, when the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics drew protests after inviting physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne to speak on intelligent design.

This time around, theologians were predictably encouraged, Harvard scientists were standoffish but pleasant, and secularists warily expressed a glimmer of hope that such a professorship might lend support to their causes.

The Watson professorship is the latest in a series of similarly prestigious posts that began with Princeton Theological Seminary's 1992 appointment of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen as the first James I. McCord Professor of Theology and Science. Oxford University followed suit in 2000 with the appointment of John Hedley Brooke as its first Andreas Idreos Professors of Science and Religion. Others include Marquette University's 2001 naming of Jame Schaefer to a newly created science and religion professorship and the 2005 appointment of Andrew Lustig to become Davidson College's first Holmes Rolston III Professor of Religion and Science.

"The research grant and endowment for a religion-science professorship affirm the ongoing interest in relating the disciplines as a bona fide field of academic inquiry," said Schaefer. "Harvard joins Princeton and other major universities in the world in exploring the religion-science relationship in a prestigious way."

The news comes on the heels of a $1.5 million grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts to a University of Missouri religion research center to study the relationship between religion and health care, and other topics. (See "Other schools encourage dialogue.") It also comes as the John Templeton Foundation, which funds Science & Theology News, makes a grant to Harvard Divinity School and the university's Faculty of Arts and Sciences to study the origins of altruistic behavior and their relationship to biology, theology and ethics. The John Templeton Foundation has been making such grants to Harvard since the 1990s.

"I'm a big believer in the proposition that science and religion are complementary and not contradictory, and I am much concerned about the fact that the world looks at each differently," said Watson, a managing partner of Spieth, Bell, McCurdy & Newell Co., a Cleveland law firm, and a chancellor of the Episcopal Diocese of Ohio. "This gift is designed to attack that conflict."

Greg M. Epstein, who as Humanist chaplain at Harvard has found himself at the center of such conflict, reacted to the news with caution. "I think the idea of studying science and religion is one that can lead to useful academic scholarship and the enrichment of an entire scholarly community but may very well not -- depending on how the project is framed," said Epstein.

Some wondered about how much latitude the professorship should be allowed. "If [Harvard Divinity School] gives the scholar free rein, then the possibilities of religious naturalism might get explored at a prestigious university, which will show HDS as being on the progressive cutting edge of religious studies," said Thomas W. Clark, director of the Center for Naturalism in Somerville, Mass. "Of course, saying that the mandate is to study science and religion as complementary suggests that the conflict between science and faith-based religions might be papered over or finessed, which would be too bad," he said. "But pseudoscience isn't about to gain traction at Harvard, which is why the new chair won't reflect badly on any of its science or medical departments."

For many Harvard scientists, there is, in fact, a role for science-and-religion studies at the university -- as long as it remains at the Divinity School and does not seep into the research labs and lecture halls.

Daniel Hartl, a Harvard biology professor who specializes in evolution and population genetics, said he does "not perceive any particular conflict between science and religion, at Harvard or anywhere else, as one is a matter of evidence and the other is a matter of faith."

But although there seems to be little grounds for believing in a higher being, there is room for such a program at the university, said James Hanken, also a Harvard evolutionary biologist. "Your day-to-day activities of your average Harvard scientist won't be affected," he said.

Watson hopes to change that. "Those are the people into whose minds I would like to creep," he said.

Kevin Ferguson is a freelance writer living in Arlington, Mass. This article was written for Science & Theology News [http://www.stnews.org].

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Science and Religion Interact More than They Clash

Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion

Phil Dowe

Grand Rapids, Mich. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005.

205 pages. $21 paperback.

Sixteen hundred years ago, Augustine decided that the best model for the science-and-religion interplay was one of interaction and in Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking, philosopher of science and religion Phil Dowe argues that pattern continues today.

In his praiseworthy book, Dowe offers up four views of the science-and-religion relationship: naturalism, religious science, independence and interactivity. The first two brand the relationship as uncomplimentary, the third as unrelated, and the latter -- which Dowe favors -- sees religion and science as harmonious and dependent. He backs up his findings with detailed accounts of the history and philosophy of science-and-religion.

Dowe also reveals that ancient Christian belief made a single God the author of two books: the book of Scripture and the book of nature, which must correspond with each other. Augustine harmonized them. He counseled Christians to read scripture literally except where it conflicts with science, and then to interpret it metaphorically. Moreover, he advised reading Scripture as a spiritual work, not as science.

Conflict arises only when one book is exalted, the other demonized. If both receive equal recognition, either they serve separate functions, as in Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, or they mutually benefit each other, as Dowe argues clearly and logically in this book.

In Dowe's first case study, Galileo is placed under house arrest by the Inquisition for promulgating Copernicus' idea that Earth revolves around the sun. Surely, this is conflict. Yet, Dowe notes, the Vatican's need for a better calendar and, therefore, a more accurate cosmology inspired Copernicus' work, which he dedicated to the Pope. Moreover, this discord lay not between religion and science, but between sciences -- Aristotle vs. Copernicus -- for Augustine had harmonized Scripture with Aristotelian science.

More generally, the idea that God created people in the divine image -- rational and capable of governing -- inspired early science. Rational people can discover the workings of God's rational world. As Dowe argues, governing requires power and scientific knowledge of nature increases power; therefore, humans should pursue science. These ideas gave early scientists the optimism and impetus to engage in science. Dowe claims the subsequent success of science supports the thesis that we do, in fact, share in the divine image.

Religion motivated Darwin, Dowe's second case. As a student at Cambridge, Darwin studied William Paley's Natural Theology, a design argument for the existence of God, and wrote On the Origin of Species in part to refute it. Yet, many scientists -- including Darwin -- think God and evolution compatible.

In evaluating Hawking, Dowe shows how even atheism is a way science and religion interact. The big bang gives the universe a beginning, reviving an old argument for the existence of God. Moreover, discovery that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life generates a new design argument. These God-promoting ideas, Dowe writes, drive the development of the "Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition," wherein the universe has no beginning and thus needs no creator. To avoid evoking God to explain the fine-tuning, other cosmologists hypothesize about the existence of multiple universes. According to Dowe, atheism drives an amazing amount of contemporary science, from Richard Dawkins' biology to Hawking's cosmology.

And Dowe is right. Partition between the two fields seems unlikely. Science is used to support religion, and religion -- or lack thereof -- stimulates science. Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking is worth pondering in all its detail.

Patricia A. Williams is a philosopher of science and a theologian who holds a doctorate from the University of Guelph in Ontario. This article was written for Science & Theology News [http://www.stnews.org].

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Religion, Arts and Science - Why Branches of the Same Tree?

All human creations can be divided broadly into three categories i.e. science, religion and arts. Initially, art referred to any human skill or mastery. However during the romantic period, art was separated from the other two main branches of human creation i.e. science and religion. Arts, science and religion are now considered as different specializations that have nothing in common.

Albert Einstein said "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. " Yet we don't know why? After all, religion is based on faith needing no evidence. Science is based on fact that has to be proven by evidence. Art relates to human emotion and requires neither faith nor evidence as we know it is a fiction or an object created purely from the imagination of a human mind.

Art: An Imagination that needs emotional evidence

It is extremely difficult to define art. Art is, fortunately, a work of human imagination and creativity that is free from any bondage or test. The only reason, why a particular music is considered as an art, is that it appeals to the listener. The test of a good painting is the appreciation of the viewer. No logic, reason or proof is required to term an art as good as its only criterion is that it should be appreciated by people.

While both science and religion claims to be factual and the representation of the reality, art has no qualm in admitting that it is nothing but a fiction. As a matter of fact, some forms of arts like movies and novels clearly state that these are the work of fiction and any resemblance with the fact or reality is purely accidental. Literature, another form of art, is officially called fiction as everything in the novel or the story is fictitious which are created purely from human imagination.

Thus one essential feature of art is that it is not a representation of fact or reality. Yet a good movie or a story makes you cry, increases your heart-beat, makes you laugh and makes you forget that it is not a reality. The effect of a good art is no different than that created by the reality.

The most interesting thing about an art is that it affects your emotions and not the mind. When you are reading a thriller like "Da Vinci Code, your mind is very much aware that everything in the novel is a fiction, yet you just can't control your emotions which emerges in the reader as if you are reading a real life story of the characters in the real life situation. In a typical fiction, all the characters and situations are created by the imagination of the author, yet they seem quite real. A fiction is, thus, not a work of any imagination but it consists of many facts and realities that makes the fiction like a reality.

It can be compared with a painting of a beautiful girl. The girl may be imaginary, yet the features of the girl have a close resemblance with real girls. The colors of the painter are also real, which may not be exactly same as the real life girl give the impression of the real girl, when woven from the imagination of the viewer. An artist creates the body of the reality but the soul of the reality comes from the imagination of the viewer who pours his own soul in the art. Therefore, when a novel is read by a million people, each person imagine the characters and situation from his own imagination.

Thus an art is created by the imagination of the artist which appeals to the emotions of other persons. The real test of an art is not the test of Truth (how close it is from Truth) but how much it looks like Truth. The test of art is not the proof or evidence it has but how the reader perceives the truth in the fiction. To convey the real message in the guise of imaginative characters and situation itself is an art which only artists can understand. If the art fails to influence the heart (emotions) of the people, it can't be said to be a good art.

Science: An Imagination that needs material evidence

Science is the knowledge that is created by the imagination (hypothesis) of human mind but verifiable by the material facts and evidences. A scientist typically observes a phenomenon, hypothesize an explanation for the phenomenon, predict a logical consequence of the guess, test the prediction, and review for any mistakes. Thus the origin of science is an hypothesis that a scientist make after making an observation. The critical test of the science is its conformity with the material evidence.

Hypothesis is nothing but imagination of the scientist. Thus every scientific theory like art finds its origin in the imagination of the human mind. However, science relates to matter and its truth has to be tested by material evidence. For example, if E=mc2 was not verifiable by experiments, scientist would have discarded the relativity theory of Einstein, irrespective of the soundness of the argument or the theory.

Religion: An Imagination that needs Social evidence

A religion often refers to an organized set of beliefs and faiths regarding the spiritual or metaphysical world. The concept of religion may or may not have the concept of God. All Religions, however, have some set of common believes and rituals that are required to be followed by its followers.

Religions are a curious mix of science and arts. The followers of the religions are absolutely sure about the truthfulness of their scriptures while other people often find it a work of fiction. However, unlike arts, where the artists always tell the people that the art is a creation of their imagination, the prophets or the originator of the religion often call it a gospel Truth which they have acquired directly from God..

Therefore, religions like arts and sciences also seems to originate from human imagination. Often, its creators are known as prophets or son of God who acquired the knowledge directly from the God or Spirit. For example, Bible and Koran are considered to be the revelation of God to the prophets and believed to be the words of God. Gita is believed to be the words of Lord Krishna. However, some religions like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are believed to be originated from mortal human beings even though, the follower of their religions often try to exalt their status to the level of deity by calling Mahavir Jain and Buddha not as ordinary human beings but avatars or the incarnation of God and constructing their statues like God.

One Tree Many Branches

It is evident that the source of all arts, science and religion is the imagination of the human mind. However, the human imaginations are given different names like fiction, hypothesis or the revelation depending upon the creation. When, Newton saw the apple falling from a tree, he imagined the force of gravitation that was attracting the apple towards the earth. Galileo formed his heliocentric theory of the solar system based on his imagination that earth was revolving around sun. This was an extraordinary imagination that was beyond the perception of the senses. He had no special sense to visualize how massive earth could revolve around a tiny (looking) sun. Einstein imagined that all motions of the planets are only relative or that light is both a particle and a wave based on his imagination.

Yet no one knows why such imagination arose in the minds of such chosen individuals. Was it the desire of God to manifest the Truth through these people? Or was it the desire of man to discover the Truth that lead to such imagination? The first hypothesis is the one that is given by the believers or the religious people. However, if we presume the truthfulness of second hypothesis then also the question remains, why such desire arose in those individuals that finally culminated into such extraordinary imagination?

Body Mind and Soul

Almost all religions and spiritual people believe in the existence of body, mind, soul and spirit (or God). However, science does not believe in anything other than body as it considers even the mind as the part of the body (brain) and explains the thoughts in terms of bio-chemicals. These concept are explained in different religions. Gita (III 42) explains the relationship of body, mind, soul and Spirit in the following words.

The senses are superior to the body. Above the senses is the mind, above the mind is the soul (individual intelligence) and above the soul is God (Universal Intelligence or Spirit).

Based on this theory, we find that there are four level of evolution of human thoughts. A man "sees" the world differently depending upon the "stage" of his evolution.

Eyes of Body: The first level of evolution is the level of body. At this level, we see the world from the physical eyes of the body. This capability is common to all the animals in the world as each one has the eyes of the body. At this stage seeing is believing.

Eyes of the Mind: In the next level of evolution, we can see the world from the eyes of the mind, i.e. using the logic and reasoning. We believe that every thing in the world can be explained by the mind. We not only see what is before our eyes, but also what can't be seen from the physical eyes. For example, you see a car moving, you know that it must have driver that is driving the car. It is a stage when you see what you believe.

Eyes of the Soul: The next level of evolution is attained when we see the limitation of logic in explaining the world. Then we try to understand the world from our own perception and experience. The wise people always believed that to know the world, you must know your self. At this stage a man thinks "Ahem Brahmasm" (I am the universe). As Upanishads rightly stated many thousand years back.

As is the human body, so is the cosmic body

As is the human mind, so as the cosmic mind

As is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm

S Radhakrshnan, one of the greatest Indian philosophers of the modern science sums up the concept of the world inside in the following words

The philosophical attempt to determine the nature of reality may start either with the thinking self or the object of thought. In India the interest of philosophy is in the self of man. .. In India "Atmanam viddhi" Know the self, sums up the law and the prophets. With man is the spirit which is the center of everything.

In this respect, even western thoughts were not very different. Socrates said

"You can't teach a person a thing. You can only help him discover it within himself."

Man is capable of visualizing the Truths or the secrets of the universe that is neither visible from the eyes or senses nor understandable by mind and logic. These are Truths that are available in arts, religion and science. We know that we want to help a crying child or poor without knowing the logic and conclude that other people must also think likewise. We cry when we see injustice and we know that it is a universal desire of man. Once we know ourselves, we can know the universe

Eyes of the Spirit: When a person evolves to the level of spirit, he is able to see the entire world as the extension of his own self. The limits of time and space ceases to exist as his soul get one with the soul of the universal soul or spirit. From here he understand the thoughts of God or the deep secret of nature. All great imagination and classics are created only when a person is able to reach to the final stage of evolution. At this level, the soul is elevated to the level of spirit and the man moves farthest from the material body. However, this stage is not permanent as the man is soon brought back to the world, by the forces of the material world. Yet in the process, he acquires the thoughts of God. This is the highest state of imagination and one discovers the thoughts of God at this stage.

Translation of Divine Knowledge for the World

Once a person knows the thoughts of God or the deepest secrets of the universe, the difficulty is, how to make the world believe about what one has seen from the eyes of the spirit? His ideas seems stupid to the world as these are unique and not comprehensible to the ordinary man.

One method to convince about the Truth is to produce the imagination in words or in other forms of art like fiction, movie, visual art, music, poem etc. If there is a universal truth in these arts, it would affect the souls of other people as they would find the Truths in these fictions even if it can't be proven. The characters and situation may be imaginary in the fiction but the truth in the art can be realized by the eyes of the soul. Thus an art is nothing but the Truth that can't be explained by logic or reason. Thus art is a method of the expression of truths that are not to be proven by logic or scientific evidences but to be realized by the heart or emotions of the beholder.

Yet, it does not mean that art is without logic or evidence. No person would accept an illogical idea as art. If the movies or the fiction are devoid of logic, people can never accept it. However, the artist is under no obligation to give logic to what he says or does nor to provide evidence for it.

Religious principles too require prove by the society. It, therefore, has harder criterion for acceptance. The truth of the religion must be tested with real people. In most cases, the Prophets or Gurus themselves provide the proof of the truth by applying it on themselves and satisfying the inquisitiveness of the other people by providing satisfactory replies to their doubts. The life of Jesus or Mohammad is a proof that their truths were real and acceptable to the society. Same can be said with Buddha, Jain and Guru Nanak and so with the originators of the numerous sects. Imagine, if Buddha would have said the same things, while he was a dacoit or a thief. No one would have listened to his words. Thus religions too require proof.

If the religion claims supernatural and metaphysical consequences, people expect miracles from the prophets and Gurus. However, no such miracles are expected in the religions that are based on logic, notably Buddhism and Jainism. Thus the truth of the religion has to be tested by the people over time. Only when, religion has been tested over long period of time, it is accepted by the people as a matter of faith. Faith is not the cause of the religion but the consequence of its Truth.

The truth of a religion is applicable for the society, hence it must convince a society by making it stronger, merrier and more harmonious. It is a historical fact that Christianity, Islam and Hinduism did play an important role in the integration of large number of people in Europe, Middle East and Indian subcontinents and made its follower more powerful, prosperous and happier.

A scientific theory too starts with an imagination or hypothesis made by the scientist. However, a scientist has to convince the world by providing material evidence to the theory. It can be either in the form of experiments or in the form of logic. Yet material evidence is the core of science. For example, even though, Einstein gave the special theory of relativity in 1905 and the general theory of relativity in 1916, based on which he predicted the bending of starlight in the vicinity of a massive body such as the Sun, yet his hypothesis was confirmed only in 1919 during an eclipse of the Sun. It is only then, the scientific community accepted his theories and awarded him the Noble prize for the paper of photoelectric that was written in 1905. Since the truth of science pertains to matters, hence it has to be tested on matter.

Conclusion

Arts, Science and Religion find their origin from the imagination of the human mind. Yet all imaginations may not be true. Therefore, each imagination has to proven before it is accepted by the world. Thus these are the branches of the same tree as rightly said by Einstein as they all represent the truth, thoughts of God or the secret of the universe that are revealed to human mind from his imagination.

Life is a mystery which can not be explained either by science or by scriptures. Truth has a body and a soul which we call science and religion. Contrary to popular perception, they are not opposed to each other but complement each other like body and soul. In fact, they can not exist without each other.

I am the founding member of The Science of Soul Foundation in India which works for the synthesis of the diverse disciplines of knowledge like science, religion, philosophy and arts. The website of the foundation is http://www.scienceofsoul.com

I am working for the creation of a synthesis between science and religion through my articles. I believe that everyone can understand this Truth by the use of intuition and reason. You can contact me at aksinghirs@yahoo.com if you wish to know more about the mystery which we call life.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Religion and Science - The Blind and the Lame

What is common between science and religion?

Perhaps nothing.

Several wise men in the past to create a synthesis between science and religion, yet the difference between science and religion seem to be irreconcilable. Brian Appleyard , the writer of, "Understanding the Present-Science and the Soul of Modern Man expressed the contradiction unequivocally as following:-

It is...idle to pretend, as many do, that there is no contradiction between religion and science. Science contradicts religion as surely as Judaism contradicts Islam-they are absolutely and irresolvably conflicting views. Unless, that is, science is obliged to change its fundamental nature.

There is no doubt that religion and science are based on different premises yet their goal is same i.e. the knowledge of Truth. However, science and religion use different faculties of the person to arrive at the truth. While religion uses intuition to know the truth, science attempts to know the truth by material evidences and reason.  Yet intuition and reason are not contradictory but complementary.

Instead of fighting over the differences, one can intelligently use the same to enhance the capability of each branch of knowledge as the story of blind and lame men demonstrates.

The Blind and the Lame

A CERTAIN king made a great feast, and invited many guests to it. There was to be much eating and drinking, and every one besides was to have a present. The servants of the king gave the bidding to one and another, and in jest bade two men to the feast, one of whom was strong but stone blind, while the other had good sight but was dead lame.

"What a pity it is," said the blind man, "that we cannot go to the feast, for we should have enough to eat and drink, and a present beside. But I am blind and cannot see the way, and you are lame and cannot walk."

"Take my counsel," said the lame man, "and we can both go to the feast."

"Why, how may that be?"

"It is easily done," said the lame man. "You are strong and I can see. Let me mount your back. You can carry me, and I will show you the way."

"Well said," said the blind man. So he took the lame man on his back and trudged along, and both sat down at the king's feast.

[Horace E. Scudder:  The Book of Legends]

This small story is known to different people in different form. It demonstrates the importance of the complementary role that people can play in achieving a common goal. If the blind and the lame men would not have collaborated, they would not have enjoyed the feast.

Einstein perhaps had this story in his mind when he made a famous quote about the mutual dependence of religion and science in the following words

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Doubt: The Foundation of Science

Science requires people to question everything that has ever been said or believed. Claude Bernard, the French physiologist said,

"True science teaches us to doubt and, in ignorance, to refrain".

Pierre Abelard, the French scholastic philosopher, theologian explained the role of doubting in the development of scientific wisdom.

"The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth".

Asking question is considered to be a virtue in science. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of all time stated, "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." He explained the importance of doubting in the following words

"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science."

Faith: The Foundation of Religion

Religion on the contrary, relies on faith and expects the followers not to doubt or raise any question as every single word of the scripture is treated as Gospel Truth been spoken by God Himself and can never be doubted. In Bible Jesus Christ stated the importance of faith in the following words:

I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, "Move from here to there" and it will move. (Matthew 17:20)

Faith is the foundation of all religion. Every word in a scripture is considered to be the words of God representing nothing but the truth. Therefore, scriptures are called the Gospel Truth whose validity can not be questioned. Religions require unconditional devotion and faith in God.

The need of faith is also explained in the Holiest Scripture of Bhagwat Gita as Lord Krishna says (to devotee)

Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Lord, and engage all your intelligence in Me, Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt. (Gita, 12:8)

Faith makes a person blind to reason. Hence, often faith is also said to be blind.  

Science without Faith

Research is the very foundation of science which means "systematic investigation to establish facts". In every research paper, there are a number of citations or references of earlier research. When a common man reads a research paper, he accepts it to be true due to his faith in such investigations.

A typical research involves finding the relationship between the cause and effect over a small sample of people. The findings can always be a manipulated by choosing the sample of the choice of the researcher and also even by falsely recording the findings. The reader can not know the truth of the scientific research. Yet he poses his faith in the scientific researches.

However, due to subjectivity in the scientific methodologies, often the truth is distorted and people are confused.

For example, a major report by the World Cancer Research Fund on nutrition and cancer revealed that cancer is preventable and eating less meat and more fruits and vegetables could reduce cases of diseases by up to 40 p.c. a year.  

Yet the previous research finding were proven wrong by a study published in Feb. 8, 2006 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that indicates that a diet low in fat, but high in fruit, vegetables and grains, does not significantly reduce the risk of breast cancer, colorectal cancer or cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women

This new finding was good news for those who enjoyed their life and did not sacrifice their favourite food based on earlier scientific findings. Many people are confused because if this study is true than they have no method to prevent cancer and heart attack. The Hindustan Times, one of the leading newspapers in India captured the frustration of the common man in the editorial "Eat this dieticians" of its 10th Feb 2006 as following

After years of reading news from the terrible exciting world of science, one healthy conclusion can be drawn: studies that confidently tells us what is good for our body and what's not are predictably volatile and worth disregarding as weekly tarot card readings and sex quizzes, For if one year carbohydrates/proteins are proven to be good/bad for our hearts, the worst thing we could possibly do is to believe it and deprive ourselves of the luscious fat-rimmed streak or oil-drenched mutton biryani. One can munch on, reassured that a year or so later, there will be another study conclusively proving that it was Diet Coke that was killing us softly... Faith in the dietary research will be sparse after this recent find.

Religion without Reason

It is also not possible to follow a religion blindly. Scriptures too need truth to last.

Galileo was first to propose the heliocentric theory of the solar system which stated that sun is at the center of the solar system and earth moves around it. This contradicted the geocentric theory of Bible which believed that Earth is at the center of the universe.

He was prosecuted by Church.

When he was taken out of the court Galileo looked down to the earth and whispered softly, "It still moves."

 

Yet, only truth survives. Today, even the most devout Christian can not believe that Sun moves around earth. There are many such statements of the Scriptures which are no more believed by the people as they were found to be factually incorrect.

However, even today, despite of all advances of science, there is no scientific method to influence the thoughts of a person and motivate him to do good for the society by sacrificing their self interest. It is only religion which inculcate moral in the people and brings billions of people together to create love and peace in the society.

All scientific theories of societies like Communism, Capitalism, and Imperialism have failed with time. Yet religions continue to influence the people due to their true knowledge of human soul, the very essence of man, which is eternal and never changing.

Science with Religion

It is only when a person develops the capability of synthesizing the religion and science; he may acquire complete understanding of the truth. Reason and faith are connected with each other like body and soul. One can not live without other. Science like body belongs to material aspect of the world while Religion like Soul represents the spiritual aspect of the world. They are part of the same body of knowledge as Einstein said, "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree". A scientist can not walk without intuition and earlier research which is same as having faith on the self and fellow scientists. Similarly, a religious person can not see the world without the eyes of the reason.

A Brief Profile of Dr Awdhesh K Singh

I am an Engineer by education , a public officer by profession and a spiritual person by intuition.

I hold my PhD degree in the field of E-Governance.

I am a founding member of The Aatmic Science Foundation (The Science of Soul Foundation) that is working for the synthesis between all religions, spirituality and sciences.

The website of the foundation is http://www.scienceofsoul.com

My main area of study and research is to use religions, spirituality and scientific methods of investigations to understand and solve the real life problems of human beings.

I have published hundreds of articles and research papers on this topic on various websites and journals.

Please contact me on my email aksinghirs [a] yahoo.com for any help, suggestions or feedback.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

No Conflict Between Religion and Science?

From the Associated Press, March 3, 2009 - * Vatican official calls atheist theories 'absurd'.

Cardinal Levada: No conflict between evolution science and faith in God.

ROME - A Vatican cardinal said Tuesday that the Catholic Church does not stand in the way of scientific realities like evolution, though he described as "absurd" the atheist notion that evolution proves there is no God.

Is Religious Faith compatible with the Evolutionary Sciences?

The good Cardinal Levada may be sure of his position (*See above), but there are reasons for questioning this popular view that science is compatible with religious faith. The view of "harmony between science and faith" can be restated in terms of the following claims:

• A significant number of scientists are also people of religious faith and belief in God.

• The sciences do not disprove God's existence.

• Being a scientist and doing scientific work is consistent with believing in God.

• Naturalism is a philosophy that is incompatible with supernatural religion, but science is not committed to naturalism as a philosophy.

(This is part of the general view that science and religion are separate endeavors and have nothing to do with each other, e.g. Stephen J. Gould's idea of science and religion comprising Separate Magisteria.)

Let us consider these claims. First, the alleged compatibility based on the fact that many scientists are also believers in God results in a very weak sense of "compatibility." As Jerry A. Coyne says, it's much like saying that marriage is compatible with adultery because some married people practice adultery. Or like saying that being a Roman Catholic priest is compatible with paedophilia because a number of priests sexually abuse young people, or like saying that investment counseling is compatible with fraudulence because some counselors turn out to be frauds. People, like Coyne or Richard Dawkins, who argue that science is not compatible with supernaturalism, are surely aware that some scientists cannot shake free of supernaturalism of some kind. What they argue is that a correct understanding of the scientific approach and knowledge implies a rejection of supernaturalism.

Second, the sciences are not in the business of proving or disproving God's existence; but any look at the Western history -- the rise of science and enlightenment thinking -- reveals that the sciences have built (and continue to build) a strong case against any super-naturalistic view of nature, of history and society.

Third, it is a very weak argument to claim compatibility because scientists, like Kenneth Miller and Francis S. Collins, find belief in a god to be consistent with their scientific work. It might be true that neither evolutionary biology nor genetics proves there is no God; thus, belief in such an entity is not directly contradicted by knowledge gained in biology or a genetics. But it is also true that other scientists might hold bizarre beliefs consistent with their scientific work, e.g. some might find belief in 'Voodoo arts' to be consistent, some reincarnation, and some find that New Age Mysticism is consistent with their work as chemists. In short, the fact that a Miller or a Collins finds supernaturalism consistent with their science does nothing to show any compatibility between science proper and supernaturalism, unless we also admit a 'compatibility' with all forms of occultism, belief in magic or a variety of other bizarre beliefs.

Fourth, this relates to the distinction between naturalism as method and as philosophy, a distinction popularized by Eugenie Scott. As philosopher M. Pigliucci states it, rather than involving philosophical assumptions regarding the nature of reality, methodological naturalism is just a "provisional and pragmatic" position that scientists take in order to do their work. Unlike philosophical naturalism, the methodological type does not involve any denial of the supernatural possibility. Thus, we have scientists like Kenneth Miller pointing out that scientists do not take a vow of philosophical naturalism, but only commit themselves to the methodological kind. He tells us that all science requires is methodological naturalism, and that we "live in a material world,' and use "the materials of nature to study the way nature works." Hence, science is limited to "purely naturalistic explanations, because only those are testable, and only those have validity as science." (From "The Reality Club," comments on the Jerry Coyne Essay, Seeing and Believing," http://www.edge.org )

But according to Miller, such commitment does not commit the scientist to a philosophy (viz. naturalism) which denies the supernatural possibility. Thus, religious faith, Roman Catholicism in Miller's case, is quite safe from erosion by the force of scientific knowledge.

Are people like Miller and Scott correct? Are the sciences correctly characterized as essentially naturalistic method, with no implication of a naturalistic philosophy?

The answer is a resounding "NO" according to a significant number of scientists, theoreticians of the sciences, and philosophers of science. Scientists like Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Taner Edis and others have written books arguing the non-compatibility thesis. Philosophers like Daniel Dennett have also argued impressively against the compatibility claim. A recent article in "The New Republic" by evolutionary scientist, Jerry A. Coyne, ("Seeing and Believing," February 04, 2009) presents interesting and telling arguments against compatibility. A materialistic explanation of nature, he tells us, is not a philosophical assumption of science but is an idea which has resulted from years of successful scientific research. In other words, the work of science supports the view that nature is to be explained in materialistic terms, completely devoid of reference to the supernatural. In short, the sciences and philosophical naturalism are more closely tied together than Miller and Scott suggest. Mario Bunge, in another recent article agrees [See his "The philosophy behind pseudoscience", Skeptical Inquirer 30 (4) 29-27 (2006)]. He tells us that every intellectual endeavor, including science, has an underlying philosophy. He states that "the philosophy behind evolutionary biology is naturalism (or materialism) together with epistemological realism." He adds that "by contrast, the philosophy behind creationism (whether traditional or "scientific") is supernaturalism (the oldest variety of idealism)."

Given the arguments advanced by these people, the idea that science can be characterized as pure methodology, devoid of naturalistic philosophy, is very questionable. Even Miller, when he argues the case of natural selection against so-called "intelligent design," does not take evolutionary biology to be pure method. He cites the well-grounded theory and body of knowledge established by the science to make his case against the "Intelligent Design" proponents. But he stops there; he does not use the same biological findings to raise question regarding Christian theism. However, his work and arguments contra creationism and Intelligent Design demonstrate that he really does not limit himself, as a scientist, to method. Granted, we can make the philosophical distinction between method and philosophy; but ultimately this distinction doesn't do much in the debate between naturalists and super-naturalists, other than offer some psychological comfort to the super-naturalist.

In conclusion, the touted distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism does little to show that science and religion are compatible. The same can be said regarding the claims that "science does not disprove God," that many scientists are also persons of faith and find belief in God compatible with their work in the sciences. None of these makes much headway in showing that the sciences are compatible with a commitment to a supernatural view of reality.

Dr. Juan Bernal PhD is a retired mainframe programmer with degrees in philosophy and Spanish literature. Juan is the a managing blogger & author at PhilosophyLounge.com which covers various topics from western philosophy, religion, and history. PhilosophyLounge.com is a place were people can interact, debate, and contribute to the topics that interest them pertaining to philosophy. Take some time and visit the blog for more exciting articles.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.