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