The First Hour of the Egyptian Amduat is a perfect example
of how ancient peoples often used religion to explain natural phenomena. I have
often also heard people say that religion began when people first encountered
death since death is mysterious and confusing. In a world where science can
answer questions about our universe, what is the role of religion today? If
religion’s only purpose were to serve as a default for things we could not
explain, why are there so many faithful followers today? If science holds the
key, why would anyone at Mines believe in an Omniscient Being? Why does Stephen
Hawking remain a professed atheist while some of his contemporaries are devout
in some religion or another?
I was able to speak with Aaron about this topic on
Wednesday, and we started talking about faith and what it meant. Aaron
mentioned how sometimes it seemed that people expressing “faith” just accept things
without question or doubt and that these same people too often say, “God works
in mysterious ways.” (I hope I paraphrased you correctly, Aaron. If not, I
apologize. Please correct me.) I responded by saying faith is an expression of
humility when we realize that we cannot know everything and that we must trust
that events happen for a reason.
The question remains: For what is Pablo Neruda searching in
his poem Unity? Do we seek closeness
to “The Old One” as Alan Lightman states in his book Einstein’s Dreams, or is being a member of a religion comparable to
joining a club or other organization based on common interests?
I don't know if this will help answer any of the questions you posed Cat, but I found a quote by Clifford Geertz that addresses religion from an anthropological perspective:
ReplyDelete“A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.” – Clifford Geertz
By this definition, I would say that science is a form of religion. Additionally, I would argue that science often has to be taken on faith just as much as any religious notion must be. It is true that I myself could learn the knowledge to argue for the irrefutable truth in every single scientific tenet ever thought up, which may be something that is not possible with many faith based religions. But what about the millions of people who don’t have my education? Don’t they have to take scientific principles on faith? If I tell my ten year old brother than matter can be neither created nor destroyed or that negative entropy generation is impossible, he can’t work out the math to prove or disprove my statements. All he can do is choose whether or not he trusts me enough to believe me.
It is also true that science can be demonstrated in a very concrete fashion. But I’ve never actually seen an electron. How do I know that science isn’t completely wrong about the existence of these subatomic particles? Because my professors told me so. How do I know that I can believe them? Aren’t they just telling me what their professors told them? One might argue that there is scientific data to back up their assertions. But isn’t scientific data open to interpretation? Isn’t that why we need people involved in the scientific process? A machine can churn out a bunch of numbers, but somewhere along the way someone has to decide what those numbers mean.
I think that the biggest difference between the idea of science as religion and the “classic” idea of religion is that science is recognized as something we can use rather than as something that uses us. I think that religion too often leads to pain and misery in the form of oppression and even persecution because people can foist the responsibility for causing that pain off onto some higher power. With science there is no higher power to claim as responsible for genocides or wars. Gravity does not condemn adulterers. Entropy does not want homosexuals to be persecuted. Additionally, science is the same everywhere, regardless of language or culture. Newton’s first law doesn’t care if I am a blonde woman living in the modern USA or if I am Herodotus living in the ancient world or if I am a single man living in China.
Is it possible that religion is a force of habit? Maybe after using it for so long to explain the unknown, and considering that there is still a lot to be learned about the world, we instinctively continue to employ it in that manner.
Thank you for that quote, Katie. It gave me a lot to think on and a new perspective I had never considered. I agree with your point about science being a form of religion. Taking things on faith happens all the time, especially in spectroscopy.
DeleteI've definitely seen religion as a habit in the form of what we call "cradle Catholics". Many people practice a faith without actually understanding what it means. Yet some people know the theology of their religion forwards and backwards. I find it odd that people raised in religious-centered homes have just a good chance of embracing a religion as entirely rejecting it. I wonder then, if we can conclude that choice of religion or lack of one is completely arbitrary and simply takes the shape of a hobby for people to do on their Sabbath.
Cat, I believe your opening statement is a kind of scientific mythology, much as religious folks might say, "Science is an attempt to understand the will and manifestation of God or the gods." Religion has many functions, of which yes, one minor one is explanation of natural phenomenon. It is a persistent complex, much like gender, which gathers together traits, tendencies, and cultural contexts. For example, a trait or instinct would be our ability to find unseen patterns. A tendency would be the codification of cultural norms and taboos into law; most cultures do this in one form or another. A cultural context would be the arising of Abrahamic religions from one very small region of the world.
ReplyDeleteIn our upcoming discussion of metaphysics vs. physics and the meaning of metaphor I hope we can address some questions about the function of non-scientific, or apparently non-scientific cultural complexes.
You're absolutely right that a major function of religion is cultural glue. That is probably much more important and persistent than explaining natural phenomena. After all, "scientifically proven" is practically a mantra for why something works, and is itself, as pointed out in this dialog, a belief-based statement for most people.
I often wonder personally what will replace the religious context in a multicultural global society in which we share a variety of religions which, while having some commonalities, have also quite significant differences. Religion was an important identifier for so long, and still functions that way in some places in the world. But identity has shifted away from religion...
Katie, I would add that, in practice, scientists don't kill each other over revolutions, whereas religious folks quite often do. I see that as a significant difference, even if in principle different forms of belief are involved in both complexes.
Lincoln, I like this statement,"Science is an attempt to understand the will and manifestation of God or the gods." It reminds me of Einstein and his search to be closer to an Infinite Being through his understanding of time. I do see your point, though, how this is not the only function of science and how this is comparable to the statement I made about religion.
DeleteI wonder if identity indeed has shifted away from an individual's religion. I myself identify as Catholic, and I'm surrounded by several people who do the same. Although I have had to clarify that I am a practicing Catholic, which makes a huge difference since many people say they are but do not really understand the catechism. Am I an anomaly, or am I living in a bubble? What about people who identify based on their non-belief in a religion? I've also noticed a resurgence of youth seeking traditional forms of religion--rigid, black-and-white type of theology where they can have clear cut rules and guidelines. I'm wondering if you could expound more upon the shift you are observing and what I am observing.
Cat, some movements in Catholicism and Sunni Islam have treasured and encouraged the complete use of our minds over the ages, in the context of using our god-given gifts to the fullest. In Judaism such intellectual exploration has become the norm for most branches. So despite the anti-intellectualism prevalent in the US and sometimes appearing in different versions of Abrahamic religions, I do think there is space for a questioning, thinking person. In most religions one has to step beyond the rational, whether in Zen koans, reciting the 99 names all night in Sufism, or contemplation of the trinity in Catholicism. In this sense religions, in their best and deepest forms, have always encouraged a variety of paradigms and modes of thought. The more you face the hard questions, the deeper you go, the better Catholic you will be. Aquinas encountered the Greek scientific work of Aristotle (in Arabic), the Muslim work of Ibn Rushd (Averroes), “The Incoherence of the Incoherence,” and the Jewish work of Maimonides, “Guide to the Perplexed,” and fell in love. This is the beginning of modern Western philosophy, a love story between paradigms and religions.
ReplyDelete