|
|
 | |  |
|
God = (Heaven + Earth) - Hell
There
are many out there that think science could use a dash of spirituality.
This notion generally comes those that have a healthy spiritual outlook
or are at least in league with a religion or two and find personal
fulfillment out of that worldview. Science, on the other hand, has an
empirical history dating far back in the unconscious reachings of
philosophy. Popular opinion is that for something to be scientific it
must be empirical. Or, in other words, must be verified with the five
senses. It is easy, then, to criticize science for not bringing in
spiritual concepts - or at least addressing them. But what if the shoe
were on the other foot?
Does spirituality need science?
Many
modern religions operate now with some sort of science in their
thinking. If one goes to a church on Sunday they will usually accept
that the Earth is round and rotates around the Sun. They may even agree
with Netownian physics and could possibly be using scientific gadgets
like televisions and speaker systems. Religious people, by and large,
accept science in their everyday life. They benefit from modern
medicine, use TiVO, and surf the World Wide Web. Some, in fact, my even
be scientists. It is commonly accepted that one can be spiritual and scientific, however can spirituality be scientific?
Science
seems to think so. There are an increasing amount of studies over the
years that explore consciousness and the religious experience,
particularly in the field of neuroscience. Scientists have worked on
identifying the chemical reactions in the brain that occur during
prayer or even when subjects are having spiritual events occur such as
speaking in tongues or witnessing a personal miracle. Science has also
poked at such "spiritual" subjects like the paranormal, near-death
experiences, and the powers of the subconscious. Entire scientific
fields are devoted to things that are not understood with only the five
senses, such as nano-physics, quantum physics and many aspects of
astrophysics. For all of the criticism, it seems science does its best
to at least understand spirituality.
Bringing
science into spirituality is an altogether different practice. Many
religions rely on non-empirical evidence such as faith, visions and
personal revelations to explain the world. The religious and spiritual
do not necessarily need scientific results to come to conclusions and,
in fact, may even reject scientific evidence if it is contrast to their
own personal belief-systems.
This is of
course, not new. Science and religion have duked it out for thousands
of years. Religion used to win a lot more, because as empirical
evidence would prove a belief-system wrong it was burned at the stake.
Or tortured and burned. Or tied to running horses. Or hung. But as
reason won out, religion had to take a more subservient stance on
topics. This transition did not happen without a fight, but the status
quo in the modern world is that science reigns and religion does its
best to keep belief-systems intact despite that.
That
being the case, however, there was a time where one could not draw a
difference between science and religion. Many early religious scholars
and philosophers used science religiously because there was no world
outside of God. Christian alchemists, for example, spent their days and
nights inventing what would become modern chemistry in effort to
recreate the process of Biblical creation. Mathematicians used formulas
to describe God's perfect creation. Even Pythagoras, who first realized
math could describe the physical world, was so spiritually bound to his
science he could find no true meaning of life when he stumbled upon
irrational numbers.
Since the success of
industry, science and technology, spirituality has taken a backseat to
science. Many modern religions, therefore, took a mystical approach to
their teachings wherein one's personal spiritual experience could not
necessarily be described in scientific terms. This is a comfortable
place to be, because than spirituality can exist separate and apart
from science. Since science is removed from religion, that means
ultimately religions can never be proven as incorrect (or correct). The
end result are a long list of presumptions that are accepted upon
feelings and faith and not upon common sense or evidence.
It
doesn't have to be that way. Arguably, there is no difference between
science and religion. Science is also based upon assumptions (faith)
and many scientific studies have no more evidence supporting them than
Old Testament miracles. The difference is, science is willing to adapt.
Science is willing to evolve and learn from its mistakes. Science is
not carved in stone. Religion, on the other hand, is often immobile. It
is built from tradition and arbitrary laws and rules. Removing the need
for evidence has removed its ability to breathe, evolve, learn and
adapt.
If spirituality had just a dash of
science in it then religions wouldn't necessarily need to take the
backseat. They could ride up front along with science and if the two
compared notes maybe we'd learn more about the world we live in and the
people we live with.
This work by Mark Havenner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
| |
 | |  |
| | |
|
Other Recent Articles from the Religion Category:
| |
| | |
|
|
|
