Science Vs. Religion
So my friend Airyn got me thinking about science and religion. This got me thinking about the roll that these two things play in my life.
It seems to me that science and religion were created to satisfy two completely separate needs. The roll of science is to put the universe into terms that we can use to either manipulate our environment or predict future events. In other words, science asks how does the world work? We use religion to try to attempt to answer the question of why.
But onto which pallet do I choose to paint my life?
I have always been fascinated by science. Every kind of science. Biology, psychology, physics, chemistry, mathematics... all of them. But the more closely I look at the sciences the more I come to realize that science says less about the universe and phenomena than it does about the way we think and organize ideas. For instance, in quantum physics objects are said to have a wave/particle duality. Does this mean that that these sub-atomic particles exist in two different states? Of course not. However, the way we describe their state of existence mathematically fits into either particle or wave functions depending on what quality we are presently examining. The truth is that we have no comparison in our collective experience to what goes on at the sub-atomic level, so we use metaphors from our level of reality to try and explain something that is outside of our realm of reality. This may or may not be a futile effort. But it is the effort and not the end that is important.
Although I love science, I paint my life in the color of religion. The ultimate questions are the ones I want to ask. Why the struggle? Why the joy? Why the suffering? How do we transcend common existence? And the answers? Who gives a shit about answers? I just want to follow the questions to see where they'll take me. The Buddha never gave his followers any destination. He just illuminated the path and said give it a walk. Now that's my kind of religion. Sally forth into the unknown!
It seems to me that science and religion were created to satisfy two completely separate needs. The roll of science is to put the universe into terms that we can use to either manipulate our environment or predict future events. In other words, science asks how does the world work? We use religion to try to attempt to answer the question of why.
But onto which pallet do I choose to paint my life?
I have always been fascinated by science. Every kind of science. Biology, psychology, physics, chemistry, mathematics... all of them. But the more closely I look at the sciences the more I come to realize that science says less about the universe and phenomena than it does about the way we think and organize ideas. For instance, in quantum physics objects are said to have a wave/particle duality. Does this mean that that these sub-atomic particles exist in two different states? Of course not. However, the way we describe their state of existence mathematically fits into either particle or wave functions depending on what quality we are presently examining. The truth is that we have no comparison in our collective experience to what goes on at the sub-atomic level, so we use metaphors from our level of reality to try and explain something that is outside of our realm of reality. This may or may not be a futile effort. But it is the effort and not the end that is important.
Although I love science, I paint my life in the color of religion. The ultimate questions are the ones I want to ask. Why the struggle? Why the joy? Why the suffering? How do we transcend common existence? And the answers? Who gives a shit about answers? I just want to follow the questions to see where they'll take me. The Buddha never gave his followers any destination. He just illuminated the path and said give it a walk. Now that's my kind of religion. Sally forth into the unknown!


1 Comments:
The funny thing about science's answers of why, is that they are defined by the rules of science that we define. And all these rules are defined by our flawed objectivity.
I think one of the problems that we are having with this ongoing dialog is that you are speaking in terms of relative reality (which is certainly useful) and I am arguing in terms of ultimate reality. Both of which have validity but look at different aspects of the same phenomena.
Or maybe I'm just full of shit.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home