Addressing Discrepancies, Part II – Religion at Fault?
elliott February 24th, 2009
In “Addressing Discrepancies – Part I,” we discussed one of the major obstacles to the unity of religion and science. Science seems to have incorrectly invalidated religious longings. In this post we investigate a second major obstacle.
This one may seem more obvious. To many, religion itself is the main reason why it cannot exist in harmony with science. Every day, acts of religious dissention take spotlight in the media. How can religion possibly stand for truth, with all its various sects and orthodoxies which are clearly not in agreement with one another?
Science, on the other hand, keeps its composure. Disagreements occur and conflicting theories arise, but these are investigated, and eventually, when scientists have sufficient faith in a common idea, textbooks are written and the rest of the world tends to jump on board. How can such a logical approach to the investigation of truth possibly be in accord with the farce associated with assertions of religious truth?
Dr. William Hatcher, in his essay “The Unity of Science and Religion” explains that the characteristic feature of science and the basis of its unity is scientific method. Scientific phenomena are systematically investigated by use of our mental faculties.
Abdu’l-Baha asserts that this is also necessary to arrive at an understanding of religious truth:
God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.
(Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith – Abdu’l-Baha Section, p. 239)
If mankind took a more objective, scientific approach to religion, it would arrive much more quickly at a common understanding of the fundamental verities religion presents. Rather than resorting to weapons, people should turn to elevated discourse, consultation and independent study. With this standard of investigation of the truth, the notion that scientific concepts and religious ideals can exist in harmony won’t seem so far-fetched.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
- Baha'i Concepts
- Comments(2)
Hi Elliott,
You say:
“Science seems to have incorrectly invalidated religious longings.”
Could you give some instances of this so I know what you might be referring to. You see, I’m inclined to think that scientific validation and “religious longings” exist in two separate realms, and that, generally, both scientists and religionists recognise and respect this. I simply don’t see generalised incorrect invalidation of religious longings by “Science”. I do see Dawkins getting a great deal of popular attention, though.
Hi Steve,
I was making an attempt to sum up the prequel to this blogpost, Addressing Discrepancies – Part I with that phrase. I do agree that scientists and religionists “respect” one another’s scientific validations and religious longings, but I feel that some object to the idea that religious longings are actually in accord with science. Many have turned away from religion because they feel science has somehow proved the non-existence of God or deemed spiritual longings as illogical. I too don’t believe that “science” itself has invalidated religion, but rather that it has appeared to many to have done so.
Before, there was a lot that people had a hard time understanding (why does the sun move about throughout the day?), and that was attributed to God. Also, people longed for spiritual solutions to problems that were seemingly beyond their control. Now, many feel that it is simply a matter of scientific education. Science and technology is healing, stimulating and making life more convenient for people. It has become the dominant, all pervasive force in many societies. What then is the need for God?
Perhaps I should have stated that science has been misunderstood as having invalidated religion, rather than stating that science has “incorrectly invalidated” religion. Part I investigates this….