Science and Religion

Teradoll on twitter asserted that science is an expression of truth, and religion is only a means of control. We then had a back and forth of 140 character messages. As the responses built up I decided to put my response in a larger explanation, and that is what follows.

In the last 12 hours I have contemplated my feelings, perused a few books, and did a, “science and religion” web search. This gave me a birds-eye view of the debate that’s been brewing for centuries. The parties involved fall into several camps ranging from that science and religion are in outright conflict, as seen in the work of Richard Dawkins, to the non-overlapping theories of Stephen Jay Gould, all the way across the spectrum to the integrative possibilities of Ken Wilber.

I personally believe science and religion have a complementary relationship. Religion and science may not have fully merged in practice but they have a lot to inform each other about. You already see the scientific method used in the religious realms with the practice of meditation. In fact, various religious forms of the major religions at their core hold mystical methods that can be applied by spiritual researchers yield results, which can then be placed in the collective sphere for study and analysis.

The advances in neuroscience are one area that can aid this discovery. By hooking up the religious practitioner to equipment we can map out the changes in their brain patterns and return specific data within the framework of the scientific method. This is where science is a tool capable of proving the claims of sages for thousands of years.

Science on its own hasn’t in my opinion satisfied me in terms of providing meaning to the complex system of the human condition. There are many people more qualified to present the data and be convincing so I am aware of my limitations to persuade. The interesting thing here though is that whether I convince you is irrelevant to the actual truth, so it becomes foolish to get overly caught up in the personal skills of the debater. I have seen great debaters shred lesser ones without providing any real value to the question at hand. One indicator of this is how often confident debaters can take either side of the argument and blast lesser competitors regardless of their own beliefs or understanding of the facts. As you read this piece it is important to keep in mind shortcomings in my abilities to convince you don’t take anything away from the dictates of truth.

One thing science has provided in my opinion is a way to eliminate the false claims of so many theologians who take extremely literal and steadfast interpretations of the wisdom books of antiquity. It is this fundamentalism that I believe Teradoll refers to when she speaks of the controlling nature of religion. My view of religion also rejects such top down interpretations of spiritual searching. This is why I rely on beliefs that are open to the scientific method, and generally hold skepticism toward things that can’t be backed up by proof. This is also why I am devoted to a path of spiritual practice as taught by various forms of religious thought. When one embraces the possibilities garnered through process, and application of principles over time it is beyond description what is given in return. I can’t give you a complete scientific understanding of my personal experiences because my skill set is limited in this area. What I can tell you is that by applying specific techniques to my daily life over the course of time has yielded in me changes I struggle to think would have occurred in any other manner. I certainly don’t see the field of science personally being able to develop me in these ways. I also haven’t been personally hooked up to EEG machines and other like devices to map out my brainwaves but I don’t need to in order to reap the rewards of my practices.

I rarely talk about my personal practice but it seems relevant to the conversation at hand. This is a window into how I view religion and science. In my life I don’t see how I could truly separate the two. Science comes in many forms, psychology being the study of the mind, neurology the study of the brain, and spirituality the study of the spirit.

Finally I wanted to address the comment about religion being no more than a narrative used to keep people in their places. This is true in many of the ways religion has manifested and it is a sad fact. In my opinion we can’t throw religion into the trashcan just because it is has been hijacked by the manipulations of power. As I continue to say at its core are the basic truths of living. My type of religion is not at odds with science, the same way that my type of science is not in conflict with religion.

If we are going to unlock the answers to these questions we to have to look closely at what type of science we are embracing as well as what type of religion. Although this short piece can only open the exploration ever so slightly, I feel it is a vital path for me as an individual to explore, as well as beneficial to others. Lastly, Teradoll I want to thank you for piping up with your honestly held beliefs, thus enabling me to explore where I stand on these issues. I’m just getting started in looking at these things (with my life permitting) but feel instantly enriched by the experience of setting these words down.