Coming To Terms: Religion vs Science

[sayak83]

Another good question...perhaps I should take a stab at producing a methodology for determining truth in the context of my understanding of Christianity in the broadest sense and then I can answer that question...

My own understanding of what is the central belief in Christianity is that Jesus Christ died for my (our) sins. I would assume that most believers in this see this as a literal statement of truth. I see it as a metaphorical statement of truth and it may be that that is not an uncommon way for some Christians to understand it even if they believe that it is essential that Jesus' death and crucifixion must be a historical fact. But this belief is NOT a methodology or epistemology. How should we understand it as such?

This belief comes into play when we engage in "self talk". Self talk is a term used in psychology to reference that inner dialogue which takes place in all of us automatically. It is our minds automatic thinking especially in a sort of dialogue form as if what we are mentally were a variety of voices all contributing to our self-awareness of our understanding or processing of our past, present or anticipated experience. Within that sphere of mental experience we have a notion of God who as a "higher personality" is aware of all of this inner conversation and can even contribute to it (somehow). So by engaging in this inner dialogue with the belief that God is present, we help to enable a sort of responsible inner monitoring of that same dialogue...that is, we are inspired to take moral care with respect to what is going on in our heads. This is, after all, a precursor to action or the process of determining available options should choice become necessary at some point.

Now Jesus is interesting in that he represents an intermediary between God and our selves. We can identify or empathize with Jesus but no so much with God. God, after all, created all those things that burden us. But Jesus was a "real guy" who lived and suffered as we do. As the story goes Jesus lived as a good person but was falsely accused of being deeply evil and punished by the religious and the civil order of his society. As a result God restored him to life after dying...God freed Jesus from the burden of everlasting death whatever that means but apparently didn't restore his physical existence on Earth.

So how does this impact one's sense of management of one's self talk? It means that no matter how harsh or condemning one's own inner voices are toward one's self one can still find favor with God if one listens to God's Word. Jesus demonstrates this through his teachings and the "sanctification" of his teachings through the story of how he arose from the dead in spite of it all. Only God could have delivered Jesus therefore what Jesus taught is in accord with what God wants for us.

As such we are given the gift, in the monitoring of our self talk, to seek forgiveness for anything which we might have done that causes us to feel bad about ourselves. This is a huge boon in the realm of our managing of our self talk when society offers only punishment, condemnation and even death for the truth of what we might have done or wanted to do. It also can come in handy when one is convinced one is not worthy in a variety of ways. When contemplating the story of Jesus and his teachings we are to see a light at the end of the tunnel of any suffering. And Jesus' suffering was clearly great as featured in the special narrative of the Passion of Christ.

Now again for me, it is not necessary to believe that this all literally happened. It is enough for me to believe that the story is metaphorically true in that we are all never beyond redemption not only in our own minds but in the minds of our society if we but have the right action and attitude towards ourselves and others. In my own dream experience I have, on a couple of occasions, found out my guilt and submitted to a sense of morality beyond my own personal need in humility. That has consequently given me a lasting personal freedom and compassion for others.

I should mention that there are some egregious abuses of this story, most notably in the form of the whole believe or go to Hell attitude which I find virtually Satanic in this context. That approach has forever stained the value of the one that I described above.

So I think that in my understanding of Christianity I am not alone...if I mask some of the mechanics of it. If I don't then I may burst some of the fantasy bubble of the narrative that many people have not the confidence level or scientific background to be able to integrate into their own understanding.

Excellent post. I will study in detail later but a quick comment for now.
Here you present the Christian belief as a mode of self-development or psychological healing...for want of a better term.
How does such a practice relate to truth per se? For example...one may justifiably claim that jogging is a reliable way of fitness development. But saying jogging is a way of finding truth makes no sense at all. So, currently, it seems to me that science and religion, by your description, are about quite different things. Religious practice is a set of practices for improving the health of the mind, and science is about finding the most useful and reliable models about the workings of the world.

 

[sealchan]

Excellent post. I will study in detail later but a quick comment for now.
Here you present the Christian belief as a mode of self-development or psychological healing...for want of a better term.
How does such a practice relate to truth per se? For example...one may justifiably claim that jogging is a reliable way of fitness development. But saying jogging is a way of finding truth makes no sense at all. So, currently, it seems to me that science and religion, by your description, are about quite different things. Religious practice is a set of practices for improving the health of the mind, and science is about finding the most useful and reliable models about the workings of the world.

This is where I probably struggle the most in being understood...I do see truth in jogging because it achieves something. Truth should not be understood as only linguistic statements of a verifiable nature. It should and almost always does include bodily experience.

When I jog (something which i actually do do 5 times a week) that is an experience of truth. I work for 30 minutes suffering while i expend energy, burn calories and increase my heart rate to an aerobic level thereby increasing my bodies metabolism and reducing its need for overall caloric intake. Whether i understand this in scientific detail or not what i do is in itself a truth, an event, a fact and the consequences of that act are also a truth whether i perceive them or not. This is the truth of objective reality which exists whether or not i know it.

My body is changed by this ritual, this discipline of jogging. It does not require me to know how or why. I may be motivated by the thinnest knowledge but i find personal meaning, even physical gratification in both the short term and the long term for doing it...in spite of the effort, the sweat.

I call this a form of experiential knowledge, body knowledge which is, perhaps, primarily of a sensory nature. It is largely irrational just as facts are irrational. They are independent perceptions of experience that just are rather than truths produced by rational deliberation.

Jogging can be truth then on a more non-linguistic level in a way that might qualify as some form of karma yoga perhaps.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

A bit like an engineer complaining about artists. Whaaaaaah I don't understand music whaaaa.

Awww
I’m an engineer and an artist

 

[exchemist]

I am not trying to claim that there exists a dichotomy between science and religion so much as better frame the way in which such discussions play out. I myself see a deep relationship between religion and science. Science has advanced greatly in knowledge to such an extent that it has unmasked the dressings of many of the stories of religion. Clearly religion needs to update its stories but it simply hasn't and this is a big problem for the viability and credibility of religion.

I find that modern movie and television making has had to step into the role of story-teller on behalf of religion and science fiction has done this especially well. Such movies do more for us today to give us context, meaning and hope for individual human action and attitude in the face of cosmic forces and moral approaches with global consequences. These stories tell us about our current science and project forward the future possibilities of that science. They look at how we might encounter God and/or natural forces in an ultimate way that puts our mortality front and center. They explore how we might approach in various ways both good and bad ways of encountering such realities or higher intelligences from our context as limited beings. In so many ways they carry the torch of spiritual knowledge via story in ways that religion today does not.

Of course this only explores the story-myth aspect of religion which has a different role in different religions. But this spells out some of my personal understanding to the whole relationship between science and religion.

But what stories has science unmasked, apart from creation myths - which in the case of Christianity were already being described as myths as early as 200AD? Surely the main story in Christianity is that of the life and teaching of Christ, isn't it? I don't see that science has much to say about that at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How would you approach comforting a loved one who has some fear and regret about their impending death as diagnosed by a physician?

I have never been in such a situation thankfully, so I don't know.

But I'ld guess I'ld share lovely memories of the time we had together.
What does that have to do with the post you are responding to?

 

[The Hammer]

In discussions regarding the relative merits of science and religion, I find that there is a sense of common ground between the two such that each can be seen as competing modalities. Yet in arguing about their relative merits each side tends to overstate their own favorites virtues and overburden the opposing sides with its vices. As such we have the perfect recipe for talking right past each other. In this thread I hope to lay out some of the aspects of religion and science that make them comparables even as they also get characterized as opposites and incompatible by many.

Both religion and science are "ways of knowing truth". As such they can be characterized as having a methodology for the individual to use to determine is and is not true or real. Science is centrally identified as having a concise methodology. Religion, depending on the religion, does not necessarily focus on the expression of a methodology but one can generally be determined for the sake of argument.

Both religion and science are "institutionalized" meaning they are supported and maintained by institutions which manage and promote the practice and interest of their "way of knowing truth". As institutions with members both religion and science then also have a presence and influence in politics. The institutions then can shape public policy and they represent an authority or power of representation on behalf of its members.

Religion and science are multi-disciplinary meaning that science has a number of specialties which focus on a certain range of phenomenon whether physics or chemistry or psychology or sociology. With respect to religion we have the major and minor branches of a variety of religious traditions. As a corollary we can also say that both religion and science have their "hard" or strong forms and their "soft" or weak forms. For science the disciplines that are most able to make use of the experimental process are seen as stronger forms of science even as good scholarship which gathers and categorizes data more than performs repeatable experimentation is still seen as good "science". In religion we have active participants who participate fully in a particular religion's "methodology" and espouse that religion's "myth" as instructive but there are also others who find value in method and myth but do not implement it fully in their own personal life. They may be seen as "spiritual but not religious" perhaps.

Now when comparing and contrasting the two I often find that on the one side science promoters retreat to a position where they claim science is only a methodology and they target religion as Institutionalized. When a religion promoter tries to hold science accountable for its influence on society the science promoter cries foul and says that science is not responsible. When a science promoter critiques a religion as having a inherently deficient "way of knowing truth" it fails to come to an agreement with any given religion-promoter what they would agree on it that religion's methodology for determining truth.

Another disparity I find is that science promoters claim the whole of its multi-disciplinary approach while religion promoters often claim only the particular belief system of their religion. But I think that in spite of any given believer wants to promote, for the sake of a balanced argument they must also promote all sincere religious systems when comparing their own to that of science. This leaves many exclusionary believers in a difficult position, but that is a secondary concern if they wish to promote religion per se against the multi-disciplinary character of science. They should acknowledge that whatever claim to truth they espouse for their religion, a non religion promoter is going to look at that as merely one in a range of methodologies available. Failure to do so is to already hobble one's self in the argument.

My hope is that this thread can inspire debate about the above and serve as a reference for critiquing other exchanges which seek to come to a sincere discussion about why people find value in religion and in science and how we might come to better mutually understand each other should we take up a position as a religion promoter of science promoter...which is something I can quite easily find myself switching between depending on the "center of gravity" of any particular thread.

Any and all sincere comments welcome.

I would say that both religion and science are different methods of exploring the Truth (nature of reality internally and externally). And I don't understand how the two ever became separated in the first place? I have a fairly good grasp on science (although I am no scientist), and consider myself very religious. This does not seem to be in any way at odds for me.

 

[sayak83]

This is where I probably struggle the most in being understood...I do see truth in jogging because it achieves something. Truth should not be understood as only linguistic statements of a verifiable nature. It should and almost always does include bodily experience.

When I jog (something which i actually do do 5 times a week) that is an experience of truth. I work for 30 minutes suffering while i expend energy, burn calories and increase my heart rate to an aerobic level thereby increasing my bodies metabolism and reducing its need for overall caloric intake. Whether i understand this in scientific detail or not what i do is in itself a truth, an event, a fact and the consequences of that act are also a truth whether i perceive them or not. This is the truth of objective reality which exists whether or not i know it.

My body is changed by this ritual, this discipline of jogging. It does not require me to know how or why. I may be motivated by the thinnest knowledge but i find personal meaning, even physical gratification in both the short term and the long term for doing it...in spite of the effort, the sweat.

I call this a form of experiential knowledge, body knowledge which is, perhaps, primarily of a sensory nature. It is largely irrational just as facts are irrational. They are independent perceptions of experience that just are rather than truths produced by rational deliberation.

Jogging can be truth then on a more non-linguistic level in a way that might qualify as some form of karma yoga perhaps.

I have no objection to the idea that jogging is an excellent practice and a true and valuable fact about your life experience. But certainly, it seems odd to posit jogging as a way of knowing the truth. This is what you proposed in the OP,

Both religion and science are "ways of knowing truth". As such they can be characterized as having a methodology for the individual to use to determine is and is not true or real. Science is centrally identified as having a concise methodology. Religion, depending on the religion, does not necessarily focus on the expression of a methodology but one can generally be determined for the sake of argument.

Till now, I am struggling to see how the Christian religious praxis you outlined can be thought of as a methodology that can be used to determine what is or is not true or real.

 

[sealchan]

I have no objection to the idea that jogging is an excellent practice and a true and valuable fact about your life experience. But certainly, it seems odd to posit jogging as a way of knowing the truth. This is what you proposed in the OP,

Both religion and science are "ways of knowing truth". As such they can be characterized as having a methodology for the individual to use to determine is and is not true or real. Science is centrally identified as having a concise methodology. Religion, depending on the religion, does not necessarily focus on the expression of a methodology but one can generally be determined for the sake of argument.

Till now, I am struggling to see how the Christian religious praxis you outlined can be thought of as a methodology that can be used to determine what is or is not true or real.

That topic would require a different thread. But I might suggest that for the practically-minded the sensory world may hold more value, seem more real while for the intuitive person fantasy might hold more weight and seem more important.

For me truth is something we experience just as much subjectively within our minds as it is something we experience as objective and apart from ourselves. In the end if we dont feel subjectively the value of objective truth then there is no personal or objective knowledge worth wanting. It is a sort of paradox.

 

[sayak83]

That topic would require a different thread. But I might suggest that for the practically-minded the sensory world may hold more value, seem more real while for the intuitive person fantasy might hold more weight and seem more important.

For me truth is something we experience just as much subjectively within our minds as it is something we experience as objective and apart from ourselves. In the end if we dont feel subjectively the value of objective truth then there is no personal or objective knowledge worth wanting. It is a sort of paradox.

I think that a more robust defense of religion being a methodology of finding the truth at par with science can be made. Hinduism and Buddhism will certainly claim that. For example, Buddhists might claim that the methodology of mindfulness is a way towards unraveling and absorbing truths about phenomena that a scientific study will not necessarily provide.

 

[charlie sc]

In discussions regarding the relative merits of science and religion, I find that there is a sense of common ground between the two such that each can be seen as competing modalities. Yet in arguing about their relative merits each side tends to overstate their own favorites virtues and overburden the opposing sides with its vices. As such we have the perfect recipe for talking right past each other. In this thread I hope to lay out some of the aspects of religion and science that make them comparables even as they also get characterized as opposites and incompatible by many.

Both religion and science are "ways of knowing truth". As such they can be characterized as having a methodology for the individual to use to determine is and is not true or real. Science is centrally identified as having a concise methodology. Religion, depending on the religion, does not necessarily focus on the expression of a methodology but one can generally be determined for the sake of argument.

Both religion and science are "institutionalized" meaning they are supported and maintained by institutions which manage and promote the practice and interest of their "way of knowing truth". As institutions with members both religion and science then also have a presence and influence in politics. The institutions then can shape public policy and they represent an authority or power of representation on behalf of its members.

Religion and science are multi-disciplinary meaning that science has a number of specialties which focus on a certain range of phenomenon whether physics or chemistry or psychology or sociology. With respect to religion we have the major and minor branches of a variety of religious traditions. As a corollary we can also say that both religion and science have their "hard" or strong forms and their "soft" or weak forms. For science the disciplines that are most able to make use of the experimental process are seen as stronger forms of science even as good scholarship which gathers and categorizes data more than performs repeatable experimentation is still seen as good "science". In religion we have active participants who participate fully in a particular religion's "methodology" and espouse that religion's "myth" as instructive but there are also others who find value in method and myth but do not implement it fully in their own personal life. They may be seen as "spiritual but not religious" perhaps.

Seems like a redundant and ill conceived post. You've worded and defined science and religion in such vague terms that you could fit quite a few ideologies and/or institution there. When, in fact, science and religion are starkly different from each other. Other than promoting some religious worldview and lessening any friction between science and religion with some nicety and people pleasing shifting of reality, I see no merit to the OP whatsoever.

 

[Derek500]

Seems like a redundant and ill conceived post. You've worded and defined science and religion in such vague terms that you could fit quite a few ideologies and/or institution there. When, in fact, science and religion are starkly different from each other. Other than promoting some religious worldview and lessening any friction between science and religion with some nicety and people pleasing shifting of reality, I see no merit to the OP whatsoever.

Yip. They love keeping things vague. That's how they fleeze billions from the flock.

 

[sealchan]

Seems like a redundant and ill conceived post. You've worded and defined science and religion in such vague terms that you could fit quite a few ideologies and/or institution there. When, in fact, science and religion are starkly different from each other. Other than promoting some religious worldview and lessening any friction between science and religion with some nicety and people pleasing shifting of reality, I see no merit to the OP whatsoever.

My goal wasn't so much to define science or religion as it was to come up with qualities that both shared so that when comparing or contrasting the two, should someone choose to do so, there would be some rational sense to it. I then explained what I saw were some of the pitfalls promoters of either side might fall into when arguing in a this vs that context.

It seems you might think in the process that I gave undue credit to one side or the other in this way. If so you are free to point this out...or not. Then you might prove your assertion that the OP has no merit...or not.

 

[sealchan]

Yip. They love keeping things vague. That's how they fleeze billions from the flock.

Failing to engage but rather vaguely snipping is a way to maintain mutual misunderstanding.

If you knew me (that is were familiar with my posts generally) you wouldn't assume that I would promote any such thing.

 

[sealchan]

I think that a more robust defense of religion being a methodology of finding the truth at par with science can be made. Hinduism and Buddhism will certainly claim that. For example, Buddhists might claim that the methodology of mindfulness is a way towards unraveling and absorbing truths about phenomena that a scientific study will not necessarily provide.

I have a strong interest in these faiths and I suspect that they might provide a perspective and a language that I need to clarify my own ideas. Or maybe my exposure to those religions has unconsciously given me the idea of the multifacetedness of truth as I understand you to be saying.

More consciously I have been inspired by Carl Jung's psychology in terms of the psychology of the unconscious, dream interpretation and personality type to understand the brains multimodal, natural epistemological functions. It has given me a very useful phenomenological understanding to pair with my study of neurobiology.

 

[sealchan]

I have no objection to the idea that jogging is an excellent practice and a true and valuable fact about your life experience. But certainly, it seems odd to posit jogging as a way of knowing the truth. This is what you proposed in the OP,

Both religion and science are "ways of knowing truth". As such they can be characterized as having a methodology for the individual to use to determine is and is not true or real. Science is centrally identified as having a concise methodology. Religion, depending on the religion, does not necessarily focus on the expression of a methodology but one can generally be determined for the sake of argument.

Till now, I am struggling to see how the Christian religious praxis you outlined can be thought of as a methodology that can be used to determine what is or is not true or real.

To be honest that was the first time I had phrased my faith in so many words. I feel that I have benefitted from my own OP in this sense. And that had everything to do with your questions and feedback. Exchanges like this make me very much appreciate this forum and how it helps me to think things out

Thanks!

 

[David T]

Awww
I’m an engineer and an artist

Awww
I’m an engineer and an artist

That's a Craftsman. An artist with zero talent.

 

[charlie sc]

My goal wasn't so much to define science or religion as it was to come up with qualities that both shared so that when comparing or contrasting the two, should someone choose to do so, there would be some rational sense to it. I then explained what I saw were some of the pitfalls promoters of either side might fall into when arguing in a this vs that context.

It seems you might think in the process that I gave undue credit to one side or the other in this way. If so you are free to point this out...or not. Then you might prove your assertion that the OP has no merit...or not.

Alright. Would you mind telling me what methodology religion has of determining or measuring reality?

 

[sealchan]

Alright. Would you mind telling me what methodology religion has of determining or measuring reality?

See post 57

Coming To Terms: Religion vs Science

...and reply to that. I suspect that it might not satisfy but it will at least be a start.

 

[sealchan]

That's a Craftsman. An artist with zero talent.

Is an Artist a craftsman with zero usefulness?

 

[charlie sc]

See post 57

Coming To Terms: Religion vs Science

...and reply to that. I suspect that it might not satisfy but it will at least be a start.

All you really said is that Christians talk to themselves. How is that a methodology?