Unification of Science and Religion

[Nick_A]

Does the essence of religion and the truths which reconcile the Ways having initiated with a conscious source contradict scientific truths or reveal them? I agree with Simone Weil that the eventual unity of science and religion is of enormous importance for Man's future. Perhaps the fact that they often seem in contradiction is proof of our collective stupidity. Do you believe that the unification of science and religion is possible and even probable or will we remain forever lost in contradictory egoistic misconceptions? Simone wrote:

“I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science.” Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you believe that the unification of science and religion is possible

Is the intent of this synthesis the destruction of science or of religion?

[Nick_A]

No. Destruction of either would defeat the value of unification. Science free of an agenda and the essence of religion are complementary. Taken together they further a human perspective. I hope we as species are able to collectively become more open minded so as to experience the obvious before suffering mass destruction..

[Harbal]

or will we remain forever lost in contradictory egoistic misconceptions?

What misconceptions are you referring to? You haven't really explained in what way you see science and religion uniting.

[hajrafradi]

“I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression." Simone Weil

If you, or Simone Weil, or any other rational being read all of the stuff that is mentioned, that person would surely note that there is no identical thought it the essences of the stuff mentioned.

The authors: Plato, Buddha, the Evangelists... they wrote totally different stuff. You just have to read the material. Which is, unfortunately, harder than declaring sweeping statements about them to people who also haven't read them and they therefore automatically agree.

The above quote perpetuates a myth of sameness and therefore truth in religious teachings. Sure there is SOME truth to it... it would be very hard to write thousands of pages, or hundreds, in a book like the Bible and not write one single solitary truth. So there are truths, sure, but there are fundamental errors, fundamental falsehoods in the Bible as much as in Buddha's writings and in Plato's theories.

00000000000000000000

Edited to change erroneous spelling (Simon) to correct spelling (Simone) of Simone Weil's name.

[FlashDangerpants]

I would say there's quite a lot of crossover between Plato and Buddhism. But more or less none between that guy and science because his methodology is entirely inappropriate to that form of investigation. Diluting modern empirical sciences with Platonic rationalism would simply put those sciences back to the middle ages.

I don't really care what Simone Weil had to say on the matter. All of those 'modalities' necessitate untestable ontological expansions. It really doesn't matter whether that is Chi, the Forms or a Godhead, they simply cannot be subject to any scientific proposition if they are beyond the scope of potential measurement. Therefore mixing them with science is a busted notion with zero possibility of progress.

[Nick_A]

Science is concerned with the laws relating to what happens in the world. The essence of religion is concerned with objective "value." It is one thing to know what can be done and another to open to the conscious human perspective which allows us to feel the human condition which puts us in opposition to ourselves.

[Skip]

....The essence of religion is concerned with objective "value."

How are the values of otherworldliness objective? How is objectivity identified?

It is one thing to know what can be done and another to open to the conscious human perspective which allows us to feel the human condition which puts us in opposition to ourselves.

That sounds entirely subjective. And therefore ununifiable.

[FlashDangerpants]

Science is concerned with the laws relating to what happens in the world. The essence of religion is concerned with objective "value."

I'm not even curious what 'objective "value"' is supposed to be. What you wrote there is that science is concerned with one thing, and religion is about something entirely different.

There is no need for further analysis.

[Nick_A]

Skip, objectivity begins when subjectivity ends. Would values exist in the universe if Man became extinct? I say yes while others say no. But the point is that the depth of man’s being is attracted to what we don’t understand. You have a choice to deny it or become open to it. Plato defined Man as a being in search of meaning. Does a philosophrer or religious person respect this need by denying it?

Plato describes what I mean by objective. You can disagree but without efforts to “Know Thyself” your disagreements are without merit. If you want to know if there is food in the fridge you have to open the fridge. It is as simple as that: “Know Thyself.”

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm

“Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and not artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.”

Simone Weil loved Plato. She outgrew Marxism when she inwardly verified the truth of this idea. Science deals with the outer man and the interactions of laws our senses experiences. The essence of religion is concerned with what we ARE; the conscious potential for human “being.” Are Plato and Simone right? The only way to know is through efforts to “Know Thyself", having the impartial experience of oneself, as opposed to continually imagining oneself.

[FlashDangerpants]

Science isn't 'anything that deals with this or that'. It is a method of carrying out enquiries. This has the result that it is limited to certain scopes of enquiry. The things you are trying to add, lie outside any potential scope for such investigations.

Unless you can propose a scientific experiment about any of the things you are blathering about, you are totally wasting your time.

[Nick_A]

FD as you wrote, science "is limited to certain scopes of enquiry" So by definition, it cannot answer the essential questions of life which attracts our species to philosophy and religion. For example a person can ask "does NOW exist?" Science cannot answer because it is limited to time and space. But that is not to say that NOW doesn't exist. It just means that a person must search through meditation or contemplation to grasp the question of NOW. The essence of religion is an answer to the basic questions of life. Simone is asserting that these questions and the questions science can answer are not in opposition. It is only our collective stupidity which has made them appear in opposition

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

He was right but only a few know it. Yet as much as this idea is ridiculed, without it the human race may destroy itself.

[FlashDangerpants]

So we are all in agreement that science and religion cannot be unified.
Job done.

[Nick_A]

Of course they should be unified in the human quest for meaning. They are like two tools in a tool box. A saw is only in opposition with a screwdriver when they try to take the place of each other. Secularism takes the position similar to a screwdriver denying the need for a saw when building a house. It is foolish but foolishness has never gotten in the way of collective human naivety before

[FlashDangerpants]

Of course they should be unified in the human quest for meaning. They are like two tools in a tool box. A saw is only in opposition with a screwdriver when they try to take the place of each other. Secularism takes the position similar to a screwdriver denying the need for a saw when building a house. It is foolish but foolishness has never gotten in the way of collective human naivety before

Putting two tools in the same box and selecting the one required for a given purpose is very different to unifying the tools.
Is this entire thread supposed to just be "should there be two different things called science and religion?"

That's a bit of a surrender of Weil's bold claims that science should express religious realities isn't it?

As you have now sensibly chosen a much more mundane little claim I am minded to forgive your suggestion that I am a fool for my atheism.