I was speaking primarily of the Abrahamic faiths yes. But even in dharmic faiths where there are supposed to be these traditions of examination and testing, especially in Buddhism, well, have you ever asked a Buddhist monk if it's ok not to believe in rebirth? He'd look at you as though you were mad.
That's because although examination and testing of teachings is encouraged, it's expected of you to conclude that the teaching is correct. If you don't then you haven't examined it correctly or for long enough to see the "evident truth" of the teaching. So, although it looks promising on the surface, and is great for us Western spiritual explorers, for most native believers it is simply a different method of indoctrination.
Ok. I largely concede to your argument. But there are a few observations that I think still leave scope for doubt.
i) There is a difference between religion and religious people. People tend to corrupt things for their own gain. In fact, to my mind the very concept of religion is flawed because it is too easily corrupted.
However, that religion is inflexible, is not as much a characteristic of religion, but the characteristic of people who adhere to it. We all know how long it took to write the holy texts and how the men who wrote them built in "fail safe" mechanisms to prevent the text being questioned.
However, we spend too much time and energy discussing and debating religious people and their claims and as a result no comprehensive empirical study into the validity of certain aspects of faiths has been conducted that I know of.
ii) What was once considered outrageously ridiculous when propounded by religion, becomes common place when repeated by science. A very crude example, this is just an illustration don't read too much into it, is the big bang theory.
The Lord said,"Let there be light and there was light" is ridiculous. However, when science says the entire universe came into existence from a infinite singularity (nothing) in an instant lesser that 10 to the power minus thirty fourth of a second, it become established fact.
What seems to the difference in the two is that religion arrives at these conclusions, without evidently providing a method. Also the language is perhaps archaic with the use of colourful characters and miracles and so forth area easy targets of ridicule.
The point is, when examined, you might find some substance in traditional wisdom too.
But let us also examine science too. Science has now been complicated well beyond the reasonable grasp of the common man. When I was introduced to calculus as a child I could not move beyond the concept of x approaches zero. It is zero yet it isn't. I went through my course and passed, but always carried the nagging doubt that all was not what it seemed, even in science.
A parallel in religion is brahmanisation. Making texts so complex that they become the sole property of a select few. These select few interpret and enforce the law. When explanation is offered it is made so complex that you yourself are left in doubt.
Simple questions like, what happened before the big bang? Or what do you mean time was not there? Are answered either by complexity or by simple 'you wouldn't understand'.
Prof. Sir Roger Penrose, Oxford University, was one of the people who for a large part of his life debunked the possibility of even pondering on a pre big bang scenario. He was one of the champions of the cause. (There is no pre big bang, don't waste your and my time). Today, he is among those who no longer believes that to be true. Suggesting that perhaps his earlier attitude was not in the spirit of science.
And yet, people go around claiming that science has cracked it all. Without really understanding or displaying an inclination to understand the facts.
Franz Harare, noted illusion artist, once told me,"the most difficult people to fool are children. They don't take anything for granted because they have no previous reference points." And yet we, self professed scientific people, take so many things for granted or believe in them because we were told so and it "sound ok, doesn't it?'
Because pointing out past failures, or outdated theories of science does nothing to educate the religious loonies, it only strengthens their faith in what they already hold to be true by devaluing science further in their eyes.
How is what loonies think important to us? By restricting our mind and thought to their arguments is...loony. A waste of time. Let them think what they want.
Why not carefully examine the arguments made and logic offered in religious texts and science afresh. Why not examine the premise that science is something we can place our faith in? I came here seeking other people who would perhaps present another way of looking at things, that I could not have thought of.
Agreed that science is, well, scientific. But by the very definition of what has transpired in the past (the uncertainty of theories and their vulnerability) we must not conclude that science knows more than it does. Any time you ask an 'atheist' to examine his or her belief, which is usually based on science, you run into a brick wall. To their mind, the very admission that there is something to examine is conceding defeat to religion, a reaction borne from the useless exercise of trying to prove the religious wrong.
This has lead me to suspect that discussing alternate possibilities with atheists is just as futile as with any religious fanatic.
Exactly, for whom do I have a belief system for? Its for ME. And I am sure as hell not going to settle for a second grade product, be it religion or science. Maybe a few years from now people will study us and laugh at our scientific conclusions. That would be a great thing, it would indicate that people did not surrender to science the same was they did not surrender to religion.
When I question science, it is not necessarily so that we can fall back on religion, but so that we can move further. The science I am talking about is not the methodology but the mindset.
I believe (I might even venture to say: strongly believe) that eventually a power source will be discovered (or theoretically proven to exist) that will be stable and adhere to principles of science (call it God, Pod or Rod, thats of little significance). We came close with singularity but it failed. But such a energy source will be found. It will also be found, that our bodies are also energy carriers, and we are not floating about purposelessly as is suggested now. In fact with a very definite purpose. This too will adhere to principles of science. Everything around us is not random and by chance (Goldylocks paradox). There is a deeper principle of science involved. And it will be discovered. A connection between all energies in the universe will also be discovered. There are theories now also, but they are a little iffy.
When I started thinking down this line, I was somewhat taken aback by the dharmic texts and even some parts of Abrahamic text. And so I devoted some time in studying them and trying to establish how they arrived at their conclusions. I admit that most of what is written in these texts is either very interesting story telling, or a reflection of that time's morality or such like. But there are passages that scared me with their seeming accuracy.
But even if you suggest this approach to a strong atheist, they immediately rubbish it. For them there is no scope for new thought (they claim there is and prove it in theory and definition, but really, having spoken to many of them, I don't think they mean it). For them the present version of science is be all and end all.
I am ranting now. Sorry. Await a reply.
