SCIENCE v. RELIGION
_____________________

I am not sure that these two words should go on the same page. What strikes me about any correspondence between the two is bound to fail from the outset. Both can be as dogmatic as the other.

One does not necessarily preclude the other but there seems to be an inherent difficulty in that there can be no real starting point to the discussion. Whether there can be a reconciliation is really a moot point.

Unless we first define exactly what each word means, then, quite frankly I believe we are wasting our time embarking on any journey involving the two. In fact, I believe that these words are indefinable, which makes it more difficult!

Our main difficulty discussing the two together is that of the level at which we are discussing. This brings us to a General Semantic viewpoint. I would beg you to read H.L. Weinberg's book 'Levels of Knowledge and Existence'. It is a marvellous read and very readable at the same time. I don't know if any library can find it for you. It is out of print and I had to get a copy from a book-finders in the US. (I first read it in the early '70's at the Science Research Council library when I was working there and it greatly enhanced my thinking skills.)

A discussion of science v. religion must begin at a particular level which also needs to be defined. The further you get from this level, the more abstraction one encounters.

Language itself is both a boon and a menace to communication. Language is a means of communication at a particular level. Language requires definition and unless that definition is a mutual understanding between two (or more) parties, it will fail its job.

The basic level of communication is one with the universe, the level of feelings invoked from the senses (sight, touch etc.). However, these senses vary between individuals, just for starters. Senses are part of a continuum of sense; and I do not believe they are not linear. The natural world is not linear, therefore, without a mathematics such as Chaos Theory, we cannot describe the natural world with an algorithm.

There is also the fact that although the words (science, religion) are there for discussion (or whatever), this does not account for the individuals discussing them. This would rely on the Transactional propensities of the individuals, as in the concept of Transactional Analysis (TA). A good start is 'I'm OK, You're OK' by Thomas A. Harris, M.D.

TA envisages the Parent, adult, child relationships of the proponents of the discussion and who at any stage is talking to whom.

In my view, both Lennox and Dawkins tend to the didactic, Lennox especially. Both require labels for their views. Dawkins (it seems) is happy with the term atheism, for example. Here is one term that must be defined and agreed upon before any discussion can take place (as with all things). Even given the fact that I may not agree with most people's description of any god, I would not want to be called and atheist (if I didn't agree) because I don't like labels. I don't like labels because, in terms of General Semantics, whatever you say a thing is, it isn't.

The more you describe something, the further away you get in abstraction and end up miles away from where you were.

'What is a table?' you might ask. The first level of abstraction is touching, feeling, smelling and so forth. That is what a table is; it is a personal experience.

To share this personal experience, one needs some form of language (a mutual agreement on the meaning of words, even if they need translation).

As soon as you might say, 'A table is an object upon which you place something', you are already a long way from your personal experience of it. It is now no longer a table but 'something' upon which you may place something.

What I do find about both religion and science is that they can both be regarded as methods of control (whatever the shape or form of that control), especially when science fails to be science because it is (at this present time) regarded , more than it should be, as consensus science, which negates its value as a discipline. When science cannot be discussed by supposedly rational beings (global warming, Big-Bang Theory, evolution and so forth) then it too becomes a religion and has lost its way.

Religion has (like a lot of science) become a static entity. It is no longer part of the planet Earth but a manufactured World.

It also disturbs me that individuals like Lennox, Dawkins and excellent historians like David Irving have become embroiled in their own egocentricity and have thus lost a fair amount of credibility.







Return to CONTENTS page