Science and religion

[openspace4life]

Why would I, an essentially nonreligious person, try to make up something like the Church of Gaia/Earthseed?  Well, in order to solve environmental problems and ensure that they stay solved over the long term, we need what Harvey Mudd professor Paul Steinberg calls "the thousand-year institution," a collection of rules, roles, and responsibilities that is capable of surviving into the distant future without major changes in its core principles.  And religions are the institutions that have best proven their ability to last thousands of years while maintaining large followings.  There are disadvantages, of course--in particular, religions often lack the resilience needed to adapt the implementation of their principles to changing times--but the advantages are too great to be lightly ignored.

Given this, the project of reconciling science and religion gains added importance.  So consider this: a good scientist does not deny the posibility of supernatural explanations; s/he merely says "I can't study that" and focuses on theories that meet the standards of testability and falsifiablity.  There has always been an "outside" where science cannot yet reach, and there probably always will be.

Of course, the reach of science is constantly expanding; at the moment it extends, with some gaps, to the limits of the observable universe and back in time to a few moments after the Big Bang.  But while religious people may see this expansion as "pushing God into the dark corners," the truth is that God has currently been pushed out to about where S/He logically belongs.  After all, if God created the Universe, S/He has to be capable of acting from outside it.  And given that, there is no reason to deny the possibility that God could sometimes reach in and make the Universe behave in ways inconsistent with its own internal logic, so again, the existence of supernatural phenomena can't be ruled out. In particular, the true nature of human consciousness is not and may never be truly understood.

Nevertheless, science will continue to fight for a more complete understanding--the proponents of "p-brane" theory are already looking for evidence of gravitational forces coming from outside our Universe--and those who value faith will continue to fight back.  So do scientists have any equivalent to faith that they can hold out as an olive branch?  Well, there is the idea of "sense of wonder," the scientist's awe at the grandeur of the Cosmos and the marvellous order that has arisen spontaneously in the form of galaxies, complex molecules, and most especially life.  This provides at least some grounds for the idea that life is precious, an idea that motivates the systems of ethics that lie at the core of most religions.

Comments

Value of life

[(Anonymous)]

I agree completely with what you are saying. Humans seem to naturally gravitate towards institutions that give them a system of morals and hence make them superior to animals. Morals and values are a luxury that other animals cannot afford. Our social evolution, on the other hand, has brought us to the stage where we can contemplate right and wrong, sometimes above the instinct for survival. You are correct in stating the best institution for these morals is religion, particularly a religion of science. However, I believe your last statement is incomplete. You say science's awe of the universe and life makes it a moral partner of religion, but I believe science holds life in even greater value than most religion. Many religions believe that something comes after this mortal existence: a continued chain of mortal existences (reincarnation), a greater ascension (heaven or enlightenment), eternal damnation (hell), and many more obscure beliefs. Given this life -- each individual in their own finite universe -- is not the only existence for each life, religions are more prone to valuing life less than those who believe this life is all there is (atheists, agnostics, scientists). I hold the radical belief that science and testability hold the moral high ground because for all they know, this life is the only one we have to value. In no way am I condemning all religion, organized or not, but I hope to impress upon whoever reads this that those who believe science to be without morals, ethics or reverence, are wrong.

Ben's sister, Abigail

Re: Value of life

[scifiben.livejournal.com]

Ironically, any science-based religion will emphasize that in most respects, humans are not inherently superior to or qualitatively different from other animals (just as, in some ways, we're not so different from rocks or stars). And yet, it will have to admit that religion and ethics themselves are probably uniquely human.