Is Science a Religion?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Science is not a religion. And for that matter, religion, any religion, is not science. Yet both of them are facts of life.

There are many scientists who do not see any reason to believe in any religion although all the scientist are not necessarily without religion either. However, it will be difficult to find a religionist these days who totally rejects science.

Religion is founded on faith and belief; science on the other hand deals with facts which can be measured or inferred from measurements. Consider an example. Professor Abdus Salam unified the electro-magnetic and weak forces and the scientific world eagerly accepted it because Salam showed the reasoning how he unified these forces. Even then the acceptance was not immediate. It came in due time when others had gathered data which proved that the predictions from Salam`s theory were indeed correct. And nobody has shown any scientific basis for rejecting his theory. Not many people cared what religion he believed in. Two exceptions are however there namely Ahmadis who are rightly proud of Salam`s work and many non-ahmadi Pakistanis who fail to appreciate Salam`s work because of his wayward deviation from the traditional Islam.

Science is universal; laws of motion are the same every where. On the other hand, there are hundreds of religions in the world, each one of them having its own concept of God and His creations; each one of them has different rituals, creeds, and dogmas and each one of them is sufficiently different from others to create communal strife. Science is universal while religion is confined to its own sphere of influence.

Mohammad Gill

Detroit

I am sorry for my belated reply (about a month old), but better late than never:

Re: Anita Zaidi (reply 4)

Thanks for sharing a glimpse into your and your daughter`s life. I think I agree with your approach towards religion regarding her upbringing. I am sure she will, like her parents, find out what is best for her.

I am actually very intrigued by her discovery of Up. I am wondering if she could possibly have picked it up indirectly from the following sources: kindergarten/school, conversations between her parents, does someone in the family refer to Up (like pointing up without actually saying anything)?, tv.

Death is an interesting issue. Maybe people would not be so afraid of it if they came to accept it as a fact of life from their childhood without coming up with any fanciful explanations for it. I wonder what would happen if parents honestly told their children something like:

``See this flower, it is dead, which means that it will not smell nice, look pretty etc. Life has left this flower. But this is a part of how everything is. Things die so that other things could live. If everything lived then very soon we would run out of place and food. In a similar way, we too die, when we are old. After death we live on in the minds of our children and our friends. Death is a fact of life, and no one knows what a person experiences once he or she dies. No one has ever come back from the dead.``

Venki,

Your point is well taken.

Kafir,

I hope we can also come to an understanding sometime soon about all this. Hope to hear from you.

Afrasiyab,

``Would you also concede that Science will NEVER be

able to do it for us.``

Science as a body of knowledge is vast and rapidly expanding. Science has a certain methodolgy, but it does not have an independent existence. It stems from the discriminative faculty of `intelligence` (buddhi) when it is focused externally and directed towards the outside world. In addition as many scientists would readily attest, many answers to questions sometimes come as an intuition or as a flash of brilliance (eureka!) which later fits beautifully with the logic of the question at hand. Where does that flash of brilliance come from?



In so far as science depends on the intellect and is focused externally it cannot answer questions of the trancendent. The intellect (buddhi) is only one tool albeit a very powerful one and has an enormous role to play even when we direct our focus inwards. But that is not enough. Unless science can transform itself and its methodolgy and focus, I agree science will remain inadequate.

Rana,

Thanks. I just try:)

Kafir:

I don`t mean to deny emotions to animals but you seem to think that emotion is the only result of consciousness, while in my opinion, as I suggested to Venki, the former is a tangent of the later not the whole.

I have read some of your other responses to other articles and I think that you have some good ideas and that is why whenever I come to chowk, I always look up this article to see if you have posted anything else. I hope you don`t choose to step away from this lively discussion. Hope to keep hearing from you on this and other topics.

Venki:

You appear to stipulate that Science with all its development cannot answer the gazzilion dollar question. Would you also concede that Science will NEVER be able to do it for us.

I agree with your statement here that Science vs. Religion does not make any sense but not just for this particular reason but there are other reasons too. Maybe I can give you my understanding of this part in detail after I am done with my semester here, in a few days.

Well said.

You do a pretty good job of explaining infinite concepts with finite words.
Interesting.

regards
RanaRansher

Re:afrasiyab

`` Can we assume that it is a lower form of consciusness then since their consciusness does not appear to get them to the same venues as does ours.``

Perhaps, but all we can say is it is different. How would you characterize a `Mentally Retarded` person like the Dustin Hoffman character in the movie `Rainman` or other such people (mad savants?) who have incredible abilities in a narrow sphere while they cannot perform simple functions that other people take for granted?

``The only thing left to question the Universal fire that you refer to is how did it

come to be. Did it ignite itself.``

Now THAT is the Gazillion dollar question:) THAT is for the individual to seek. Being beyond our world of duality, of cause and effect, all we can say with our human fraility is, it just IS. All of the above are just words(speech;limitations). Reductionism, reason, logic, inference etal will take us only so far and no farther. The effort needs to be directed differently. The folding of the `consciousness` into the `soul` and the `soul` into the `universal`. Part of which involves the dissolution of the ego. This is where all major religions (disregarding their other baggage) come in. They require that devotion or faith involve `self-surrender`. And so it goes... And that is why science vs religion does not make sense. Can science help clear some of the unwanted accretions of religion? Of course it can, as long as it doesn`t become a dogma and claim exclusivity like some religions have.

Regards.

Venki:

Can we assume that it s a lower form of consciusness then since their consciusness does not appear to get them to the same venues as does ours.

Also emotions, I understand, are a tangent of consciusness not the whole.

The only thing left to question the Universal fire that you refer to is how did it come to be. Did it ignite itself.

Re: Kafir

``Consciousness is an emergent property of our biology that ends when we die.``

I would agree with this, if by consciousness (Chitta) you mean the aggregate of mind (manas or man), intelligence (buddhi - lack of which makes one a budhoo:)) and ego (ahankaara). But what is the mover of this consciousness?

Re: afrasiyab

`` Don`t you think that consciousness would exist in other animals who have been on this earth longer

than the human being if it can only be regarded as a stem of biology.``

Consciousness is as much a part of animals as humans. I am not sure why you would deny the idea that animals have emotions, although I admit science is reluctant to concede that to animals! A cursory observation of animals even for a short period would dispel that notion. An interesting book on that topic is `When Elephants Weep` by Jeffrey Masson & Susan McCarthy.

Re: afrasiyab

`` You say that we all can find it(?) in ourselves if we want

to but what I don`t follow is how is it there to begin with, within us i.e.``

Just as the body is made up matter found in the universe (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc) the soul (or whatever is the driver of the body) should also be, if I may use the metaphor, the spark from the universal fire.

Venki:

I don`t think I understand fully what it is that you are trying to imply here in your last paragraph. You say that we all can find it(?) in ourselves if we want to but what I don`t follow is how is it there to begin with, within us i.e.

Kafir:

Here is what I find puzzling:

``..., but I suppose these three faculties co-evolved. We find precedents of these faculties (the five senses, intellect, emotion) in other life forms. There is no need to assume that one was the origin of the others.``

``Consciousness is an emergent property of our biology that ends when we die.``

Biology - now that is an interesting place to start. Don`t you think that consciousness would exist in other animals who have been on this earth longer than the human being if it can only be regarded as a stem of biology.



Can you give me examples of other life forms that have all three things in it the way we do and also why would you suppose that they co-evoloved.

Also if you can assume that they co-evolved then why can`t I assume that one is the reason of the other, while we are all busy making assumptions i.e.

Hope you can enlighten me further. Thanks for the lively discussion so far, guys.

Re: Kafir

``There is no need to assume a soul exists. Consciousness is an emergent property of our biology that ends when we die.``

What then is this process of dying?

Re: Kafir

First of all sorry for all those umpteen copies of the same message. It was unintentional!!

``You`re assuming that there is a `goal` to be reached. I don`t agree with this assumption. Why do you believe in this assumption?``

I agree that the characterization `goal` is misleading. It points to the limitations of speech and my limitations in tapping into the universal. How about `seeing` or `realising` or `experiencing` or `knowing` or `just being`:)

Venki

Re: afrasiyab

``What happens to that soul, life force or whatever you wanna call it after you die.``

If you were an agnostic, you would say `I don`t know`. If you were religious, depending on your faith, you would say it goes to heaven or hell, or is reborn based on its Karma (you reap what you sow in an unending cycle of birth and death), or that the aggregates that form this life-force also

disintegrates and is no more, or by the law of entrophy, the aggregates that form the life-force dissolve into the cosmic life-force or just as well reaggregate to form another entity.

Whatever you choose to believe is not relevant beyond a point. What is relevant, is that you have the power within you to find out for yourself. Just like any other endeavor, you can choose to do it (I climb the mountain, because it is there) or diregard it as the vast majority do.

Venki

Re: afrasiyab

``What happens to that soul, life force or whatever you wanna call it after you die.``

If you were an agnostic, you would say `I don`t know`. If you were religious, depending on your faith, you would say it goes to heaven or hell, or is reborn based on its Karma (you reap what you sow in an unending cycle of birth and death), or that the aggregates that form this life-force also

disintegrates and is no more, or by the law of entrophy, the aggregates that form the life-force dissolve into the cosmic life-force or just as well reaggregate to form another entity.

Whatever you choose to believe is not relevant beyond a point. What is relevant, is that you have the power within you to find out for yourself. Just like any other endeavor, you can choose to do it (I climb the mountain, because it is there) or diregard it as the vast majority do.

Venki