The world needs a new religion. The ones we have are outdated. Every major religion -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism -- dates from prescientific days.
Apple comes up with a new and improved iPhone every year or so. Why should we be content with ancient forms of spirituality concocted by people who didn't even know that the Earth revolves around the Sun, much less about quantum theory, relativity, the big bang, and evolution?
Our old religions are deeply problematic. A short piece from the National Academy of Sciences on "Compatibility of Science and Religion" pinpoints the problem.
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation.
Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science.
I don't find much to disagree with here, though I have a quibble with the phrase "only on empirical evidence."
This implies that religious faith is founded largely, or at least a lot, on empirical evidence. Huh? Most religious people consider that a leap of faith requires leaving behind solid factual ground and trusting in the reality of things unknown.
It's the end of the National Academy of Sciences piece that bothers me the most.
In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.
Well, that's an idealistic attitude. Unfortunately, religion doesn't restrict itself to supernatural entities. Other-worldly forces such as God, spirit, the Devil, karma, and such are believed to affect this physical universe.
So science and religion inevitably will butt heads when believers in the supernatural claim that they know more than scientists do about some physical phenomenon, yet can't prove this divine knowledge is true because it isn't based on empirical evidence.
Hey, religion: you can't have it both ways!
Feel free to play around with the supernatural, claiming that religiosity offers an enhanced faith-based perspective on reality. But if you want to venture onto the ground of science, be prepared to bring some demonstrable evidence to back up your claims.
That scientific ground is, of course, this world. It's where each of us is born, lives, and dies. It's where we breathe, eat, work, love, explore, theorize, laugh, cry, create, talk, walk.
I'm very much open to the possibility that there's more to reality than materiality, this universe. However, in my current churchless state of mind I'm no longer willing to surrender the reality of this world for a promise of a supernatural realm. I want my religion (if I ever find a suitable one) to be completely compatible with modern science.
Perhaps I'll have to create my own religion. As the above quote noted, science continually grows, expands, and changes as more is learned about the natural world. Religions, though, mostly stay stuck on the theological foundations established by their founders (Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, etc.).
Today, through science, we know that...
The universe came into being about 14 billion years ago; life on Earth got started around 3.5 billion years ago; humans evolved from primitive life forms, so we are related to every currently living entity, even bacteria; the brain is a "meat computer" without which bodily consciousness is impossible; there are several hundred billion galaxies, each containing on average hundreds of billions of stars.
...and so much more.
Is there room for the supernatural in a scientific view of the world and ourselves? Sure. But a modern religion can't ignore facts about the natural side of reality.
Remaining true to science while embracing some form of supernaturalism is difficult.
I know, because I've tried (and am still trying) to come up with a scientifically-compatible conception of the cosmos that offers some of the reassuring cool belief-stuff that traditional religions provide: assurance of life after death, objective meaning, continuation of consciousness without a physical brain.
There's a good reason why religions were born in pre-scientific times: it's damn hard, perhaps impossible, to believe in supernatural dogmas which seem to be ruled out by solid findings of modern science.
Like I said, it's possible that a new religion could say Yes! to all of science while also affirming the truth of a non-material realm of reality. I await the revelation.
I cannot see how a scientific religion is possible. Science is based on evidence, religion on belief, they are contradictory.
You dare challenge the guru, priest or ancient wisdom with a different supported argument and u ostracised (or worse) as an unenlightened fkwit. However, science actively encourages you to challenge professors and conventional scientific theories with a different supported argument.
Science is humble and down-to-earth, not arrogant as those against it claim. Science never makes grandiose unsupported claims unlike religions. Its never been about the ethereal 'big' questions, rather is practical and inherently self-limiting.
However, science is the only form of knowledge supported by verifiable evidence.
Posted by: George | January 10, 2012 at 02:11 PM
That said one does have to ponder what happens when it all goes titties up? Not sure religion or anyone has that answer, but gotta be a question as old as mankind.
Afterall, no one gets out of here alive.
Posted by: George | January 10, 2012 at 05:38 PM
George, I agree that a religion compatible with modern science is difficult to conceive of. What I was envisioning in this post were possibilities, not actualities. Meaning, if evidence were found for the possibility and it became an actuality, we wouldn't be talking about a religious belief, but about a new scientific fact.
For me, consciousness is the most likely area where what we call "religious" (or "spiritual") could morph into the realm of science. No one really knows what consciousness is -- how it arises, what purpose it serves, whether it is limited to living beings or somehow is omnipresent in the universe.
I see a connection between the laws of nature and consciousness. How do these laws "know" what to do? How do the laws manifest as regularities that often are so accurately described by mathematics? Where, if anywhere, do the laws reside?
I don't expect that my consciousness will carry on after I die. But I leave open a slight possibility that some sort of "cosmic consciousness" exists which I could become a part of after the bodily me is no more. This wouldn't be what people call God, but something much more scientific.
Posted by: Brian Hines | January 10, 2012 at 05:56 PM
Religious Humanism
Religious Naturalism
Unitarian Universalism
Me too.
Looked for a religion which is fully compatible with science.
I feel that they are existing.
The first one that came to my mind is Religious Humanism, or simply Humanism.
According to the Humanist Manifesto I, Humanism, at least at its beginnings, is religious in nature.
Humanist Menifesto I:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
As for a phycisal church body of Religious Humanism, Unitarian Universalism seems to be more or less a church based on Religious Humanism. Another choice is the Ethical Culture.
The second candidate of a naturalistic religion is, quite evident from her very name, Religious Naturalism (RN).
She is defined here: www.rnstatement.com
Unitarian Universalism (UU), again, seems to embrace Religious Naturalism too.
A UU church's recent New Year worship was even based on RN:
http://uuliveoak.org/past-services.htm
January 1, 2012 -- New Beginnings: Does Nature Suffice?
A service looking directly at the world of nature and asking, "isn't this enough?"
Religious Humanism, Religious Naturalism, and Unitarian Universalism are the closest candidates I have found so far. I am looking for more possible candidates.
Posted by: Alex | January 10, 2012 at 08:21 PM
Alex,
Please give an exact definition for,
Religious Naturalism -
and
Naturalism -
--what separates the two?
Posted by: Roger | January 11, 2012 at 09:40 AM
Brian,
Yes, consciousness seems key, but i still don't like claimed knowledge based on faith, i.e. religion. The closest to a scientific religion would be what you chaps used to dabble in, the old mysticism, self-realisation and direct experience of the ineffable (if such exists). Its subjective evidence, but its still a step up from faith.
Perhaps the least religious of mystical traditions are those that don't require faith, love of the guru, ritual, initiation, devotion, and other psycholigical manipulation tools like surrender, grovelling humility, selective morality, fire & brimstone fear psychology, dogmatic unverified doctrines like karma and reincarnation, etc. So maybe something like zen buddhism, which i understand is what you currently into, but then again its got a whole lines of gurus, vows, devotion, etc.
Mysticism seems to me to be the only possible alternative to gaining an inisight into reality. It is the core of religion and is based upon a fundamentally different principle to science. Science is based on realism (the existence of a mind-independent reality), whereas mysticism is based idealism (mind creates the apparent existence of all things). Science says mind emerges from matter, whereas mysticism says matter emerges from mind.
A key question is do human beings need religion or spirituality? Seems the strongest contenders are bringing meaning, alleviating suffering, transcendental experiences of something more than the material world. But then again, perhaps these are just lofty cultural delusions, and while some suffer others dont suffer at all, they delight in earthly pleasures for 80-odd years and pass away in their sleep content as larry. Maybe its not fair at all, and that is just the way it is, who knows.
Posted by: George | January 11, 2012 at 01:40 PM
George, I'm not really into Zen Buddhism. I've read a lot of Zen books, parts of which appeal to me. But there's too much Buddhism in Zen for my increasingly churchless tastes. Knowing reality can't be the specialty of any particular religion or philosophy, in my opinion.
I pretty much agree that science is the only way of knowing, using "science" in a broad sense that encompasses how we know what is true is everyday life (if other people say they see what I see, that's a good sign it is objectively real; if only I see it, that's a subjective reality, like a dream).
But there does seem to be another form of knowing: by identity. We know something by being it. Consciousness is the best example.
I can't step outside of consciousness and view it from the outside. Whatever it is, assuming it can be termed an "it," consciousness is my very knowing. It makes possible my ability to know other things, so I don't think we can say that consciousness can be known scientifically.
Yet it seems to be objectively real, given that other people report they are conscious also. Unless I assume I'm the only conscious entity in existence, consciousness is an interesting example of how something seemingly can be objectively real, yet incapable of being proven true through objective evidence.
This is where a form of mysticism merges with science. But otherwise, science is the way to go when it comes to knowing.
Posted by: Brian Hines | January 12, 2012 at 09:52 AM
//there's too much Buddhism in Zen for my increasingly churchless tastes//
This book might be of interest to you, then:
Owen Flanagan, Bodhisattva's Brain: Buddhism Naturalized (MIT Press, 2011)
Posted by: Alex | January 12, 2012 at 06:03 PM
Alex, thanks for the book suggestion. Looks interesting. I ordered it, not surprisingly. If God turns out to be a librarian, I'm going to heaven for sure. She's going to LOVE me!
Posted by: Brian Hines | January 12, 2012 at 11:00 PM