Complementary science and religion

[Jim]

This post has been completely re-written to try to clarify what I’m saying. The original post is at the end of this one.

This is not about what people most often call “science,” or what people most often call “religion,” at least not in media stories and Internet discussions.

The kind of science I’m talking about is not “science says ...” or “science proves ...” or “according to science ...” It is not anything that anyone says or thinks. It’s something that people do. It’s experimenting, with the aim and purpose of improving human knowledge about how things work, to help make the world better for all people everywhere. The kind of science that I’m talking about doesn’t prove anything. It makes theories and models which are continually evolving, and never equated with any kind of absolute truth or reality. The kind of science that I’m talking about is not those theories and models. It’s the continual process of improving them by comparing their predictions to the results of experiments designed to try to disprove them.

The kind of religion I’m talking about is not what people believe. It is not anything that anyone says or thinks. It’s something that people do. It’s people continually working on themselves, trying to improve their own character, their conduct, and the way they live their lives, using religious lore and scriptures to help them with that, and with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere.

That’s the kind of science, and the kind of religion, that I think are complementary, and I think that both are indispensable for us to bring out the best possibilities in life.

——

ORIGINAL POST:

I’m not talking about everything that anyone calls “science,” or everything that anyone calls “religion.” I’m saying that there is a kind of science, and a kind of religion, that are complementary, and both are indispensable for us to bring out the best possibilities in life. The kind of science I’m thinking of is best exemplified in physics and chemistry. It’s continually improving our knowledge of how things work, in us and in the world around us. The kind of religion I’m thinking of is people using religious lore and scriptures to help bring out the best in themselves and in society.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We already have that in 'advaita'. My views are wholly religious (according to Hindu scriptures) and completely agree with the latest in science; Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, that includes Quantum Mechanics too. Sitting pretty.
No chance of a disagreement even in future.

 

[Jim]

What I’m saying here is not about what people think. It’s about what people do.

 

[Native]

What I’m saying here is not about what people think. It’s about what people do.

----------------
You contradicts yourself.

The kind of science I’m thinking of is best exemplified in physics and chemistry. It’s continually improving our knowledge of how things work, in us and in the world around us. The kind of religion I’m thinking of is people using religious lore and scriptures to help bring out the best in themselves and in society.

 

[Aupmanyav]

By and large Hindus are going by 'dharma' as they have been doing through the millenniums. Now, India has a huge population, perhaps the largest in the world at 1350 million (some people do not think the Chinese statistics about population are correct*). Many problems are created by democracy, since political parties look for votes by hook or crook. Many religious and caste conflicts are engineered by political parties. We cannot rule out some aberrations.
* Expert Doubts China’s Population Number, Saying India May Be No. 1, https://geopoliticalfutures.com/china-admits-its-statistics-are-wrong/

 

[Marcion]

I’m not talking about everything that anyone calls “science,” or everything that anyone calls “religion.” I’m saying that there is a kind of science, and a kind of religion, that are complementary, and both are indispensable for us to bring out the best possibilities in life. The kind of science I’m thinking of is best exemplified in physics and chemistry. It’s continually improving our knowledge of how things work, in us and in the world around us. The kind of religion I’m thinking of is people using religious lore and scriptures to help bring out the best in themselves and in society.

I would not speak of 'science and religion' but rather about 'objective science' (concerned with knowledge of the objective world) and 'subjective or intuitive science' (concerned with exploring the mind and consciousness).
This intuitive science is also called tantra or tantra-yoga and can even be found in most so-called religions in different guises (the practical or effective side of religion).

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's naive for people to make sweeping claims that the sciences are compatible with most traditional religions. I know people want them to be, but so very often the "comparability" does not stand up to detailed analysis.

For instance, the Catholic Church claims to acknowledge evolution, and yet the evolution it acknowledges is not the evolution of the sciences. The Church's "evolution" assumes purpositive changes over time. The sciences insist there is no purpose to evolution.

So many claims to comparability do not stand up under detailed analysis -- especially those dealing with quantum mechanics.

 

[Native]

I would not speak of 'science and religion' but rather about 'objective science' (concerned with knowledge of the objective world) and 'subjective or intuitive science'

I agree - And then again I would consider "objective science" and "subjective science" as equal qualities when it comes to understanding everything.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think it's naive for people to make sweeping claims that the sciences are compatible with most traditional religions. I know people want them to be, but so very often the "comparability" does not stand up to detailed analysis.

So many claims to comparability do not stand up under detailed analysis -- especially those dealing with quantum mechanics.

Check with me. 100% concurrence including quantum mechanics. I am not speaking for the whole of Hinduism, but my view of 'advaita' philosophy (non-duality). And not transgressing the scriptures even by an inch at any time.

 

[Jim]

To try to clarify again, the kind of science and the kind of religion that I’m talking about are not any specific world views, not any specific systems of ideas, not any specific collections of statements about what is true and what is false. It is not about what people think. It’s about what people do, with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere. The kind of science that I’m talking about is some attitudes and behavior that help us continually improve our knowledge of how things work, with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere. The kind of religion that I’m talking about is people continually working on themselves to improve their own attitudes and behavior, using religious lore and scriptures to help them do that, with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere.

 

[lukethethird]

I’m not talking about everything that anyone calls “science,” or everything that anyone calls “religion.” I’m saying that there is a kind of science, and a kind of religion, that are complementary, and both are indispensable for us to bring out the best possibilities in life. The kind of science I’m thinking of is best exemplified in physics and chemistry. It’s continually improving our knowledge of how things work, in us and in the world around us. The kind of religion I’m thinking of is people using religious lore and scriptures to help bring out the best in themselves and in society.

Science must be objective to be considered science while religion is subjective so no, there is nothing complementary, and while science can improve our lives, our religion is best not taken seriously.

 

[sealchan]

I’m not talking about everything that anyone calls “science,” or everything that anyone calls “religion.” I’m saying that there is a kind of science, and a kind of religion, that are complementary, and both are indispensable for us to bring out the best possibilities in life. The kind of science I’m thinking of is best exemplified in physics and chemistry. It’s continually improving our knowledge of how things work, in us and in the world around us. The kind of religion I’m thinking of is people using religious lore and scriptures to help bring out the best in themselves and in society.

Do you an example of "using religious lor and scriptures to help bring out the best..."?

 

[godnotgod]

Both religion and science are the product of conditioned awareness. They are not reflective of Reality as it actually is, but are concepts ABOUT Reality, religious ideas being based upon a preconception of the existence of a God as creator of the Universe, and science as maintaining factual knowledge of Reality, but not understanding the true nature of Reality itself. Only the mystic will have direct experience of Reality itself. It is the spiritual experience, not the religious or scientific dogma or fact that is the "merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality", as Deepak Chopra tells us. Religion and science are descriptions of Reality, and descriptions of Reality are not what the true nature of Reality is.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

To try to clarify again, the kind of science and the kind of religion that I’m talking about are not any specific world views, not any specific systems of ideas, not any specific collections of statements about what is true and what is false. It is not about what people think. It’s about what people do, with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere. The kind of science that I’m talking about is some attitudes and behavior that help us continually improve our knowledge of how things work, with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere. The kind of religion that I’m talking about is people continually working on themselves to improve their own attitudes and behavior, using religious lore and scriptures to help them do that, with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere.

My father once told me, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't. The qualifiers that you use are so vague and ambiguous, that they can mean anything you want or nothing at all. It sounds more like a sales pitch for a recruitment/induction drive. So, unless you wish to give some examples, facts, and evidence to support your lore with ideals, you are just editorialising by using hypotheticals. On a planet full of inequalities, bigotry, intolerance, poverty, differences in languages, cultures, and traditions, sicknesses and diseases, commonality can be far too elusive.. Just getting a neighbourhood to agree on something is difficult enough, let alone getting the entire world agree on anything. Regardless of the rationale. If the majority of people told their representative that if the price of petrol goes up by one cent, they would not vote them back in again. The price of petrol would go down. It may take a few representatives getting voted out to demonstrate resolve, but eventually, the price of petrol would go down. The greatest fear that the top 5% of the the world's elite have, is the power of the vote by the bottom 95%.of the world's less elite.

 

[Marcion]

To try to clarify again, the kind of science and the kind of religion that I’m talking about are not any specific world views, not any specific systems of ideas, not any specific collections of statements about what is true and what is false. It is not about what people think. It’s about what people do, with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere. The kind of science that I’m talking about is some attitudes and behavior that help us continually improve our knowledge of how things work, with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere. The kind of religion that I’m talking about is people continually working on themselves to improve their own attitudes and behavior, using religious lore and scriptures to help them do that, with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere.

That comes close to the way my guru decribes tantra. To do something practical or useful for the world also comes under tantra.

 

[godnotgod]

Science must be objective to be considered science while religion is subjective so no, there is nothing complementary, and while science can improve our lives, our religion is best not taken seriously.

The problem with both views is that they must first set up an arbitrary subject/object split in the mind in order to operate, a split which does not exist in Reality to begin with. Via of this split, we see the Universe as a collection of 'things', when the reality is that it is instead an action, always in flux, but appearing as separate 'things' interacting with one another. Ocean waves are not a collection of separate 'things' called 'waves', but altogether comprise a total activity of the entire ocean as a single ongoing event. From the religious POV, The Universe is a collection of artifacts; of 'made things' created by a 'Maker', like a potter 'makes' the artifact known as 'pot'. Even man is such an artifact, alive only by virtue of a 'Maker', and subject to creation and destruction, when the deeper reality is that man's true nature is indestructible because it is empty of inherent self-nature.

In the Hindu view, however, The Universe is not just a manifestation of an underlying conscious reality, ie 'Brahman', but the world is none other than Brahman playing itself as 'The World'. But we don't see it that way because of the conditioned mind, which sees it through the conceptual frameworks of Time, Space, and Causation in the subject/object split.

 

[Marcion]

In the Hindu view, however, The Universe is not just a manifestation of an underlying conscious reality, ie 'Brahman', but the world is none other than Brahman playing itself as 'The World'. But we don't see it that way because of the conditioned mind, which sees it through the conceptual frameworks of Time, Space, and Causation in the subject/object split.

Brahman is not 'playing itself as 'The World'', but rather Brahma or the Cosmic Consciousness (Supreme Subject) is projecting the whole universe within His mind, a mind that has no need for a brain, just like Brahma has no shape or form but is Himself purely Subject.

That is why you can never find Brahma as the projector or creator with your senses or thoughts but only through your own personal subjectivity (through the atman part of it). You are atman and He is Paramatman ("great atman"). The difference or separation between you and Him is only illusionary.

You may call everything pertaining to subjectivity "empty" if you wish, but even the objective world is then in reality "empty" because it is a projection of the Supreme Subject. I prefer to call the universe a temporary relative reality rather than an empty illusion. Of course for Brahman our universe is merely His dream, His projection. But a very special dream that strictly follows the natural laws and feels to us convincingly real as we cannot see through its relativity (yet).

When you merge your subject with the Supreme Subject or rather when you remove the illusion of separation, you could say that the "emptiness" of it all becomes apparent to you, but what is the the meaning or use of calling that emptiness? The idea of emptiness is only meaningful in contrast to something that does not appear as "empty" and it is the Supreme Subjectivity who is the Projector, He is that Ultimate Reality and there is nothing outside of Him.

 

[ecco]

The kind of science I’m talking about is ... something that people do. It’s experimenting, with the aim and purpose of improving human knowledge about how things work, to help make the world better for all people everywhere. The kind of science that I’m talking about doesn’t prove anything. It makes theories and models which are continually evolving, and never equated with any kind of absolute truth or reality. The kind of science that I’m talking about is not those theories and models. It’s the continual process of improving them by comparing their predictions to the results of experiments designed to try to disprove them.

That's vague at best.

The kind of religion I’m talking about is not what people believe. It is not anything that anyone says or thinks. It’s something that people do. It’s people continually working on themselves, trying to improve their own character, their conduct, and the way they live their lives, using religious lore and scriptures to help them with that, and with the aim and purpose of helping to improve the world for all people everywhere.

Why do you think it's necessary to use "religious lore and scriptures" to improve one's character and conduct?

 

[godnotgod]

Brahman is not 'playing itself as 'The World'', but rather Brahma or the Cosmic Consciousness (Supreme Subject) is projecting the whole universe within His mind, a mind that has no need for a brain, just like Brahma has no shape or form but is Himself purely Subject.

That is why you can never find Brahma as the projector or creator with your senses or thoughts but only through your own personal subjectivity (through the atman part of it). You are atman and He is Paramatman ("great atman"). The difference or separation between you and Him is only illusionary.

You may call everything pertaining to subjectivity "empty" if you wish, but even the objective world is then in reality "empty" because it is a projection of the Supreme Subject. I prefer to call the universe a temporary relative reality rather than an empty illusion. Of course for Brahman our universe is merely His dream, His projection. But a very special dream that strictly follows the natural laws and feels to us convincingly real as we cannot see through its relativity (yet).

When you merge your subject with the Supreme Subject or rather when you remove the illusion of separation, you could say that the "emptiness" of it all becomes apparent to you, but what is the the meaning or use of calling that emptiness? The idea of emptiness is only meaningful in contrast to something that does not appear as "empty" and it is the Supreme Subjectivity who is the Projector, He is that Ultimate Reality and there is nothing outside of Him.

I see that you are expressing an anthropomorphic view of Reality in referring to Brahman as 'he'. I give no credence to such a view. Brahman, as I have always understood its meaning, is Pure Consciousness, ie 'the ground of all Being', without an agent of consciousness. The problem with your view, that Brahman is projecting the phenomenal world apart from Brahman, is that now you have created a 'doer' and an 'other'. I see no such 'doer'; no such 'manifestor of the manifestation'. I see only the manifestation itself, and that manifestation is none other than the material world that is maya. This is in keeping with the Hindu principle that Brahman is none other than the world; none other than maya, via the divine play called lila. It is also in keeping with the doctrine of Tat tvam asi, ie 'Thou Art That'.

The Universe cannot be a relative reality, simply because, due to the nature of its being The Universe, that is to say, 'Everything' that can possibly be, then there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. IOW, and as Vivekenanda has told us:

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass [ie conditioned mind] of Time, Space, and Causation"

From the Buddhistic POV, there is no separation between you and Brahman, ie Pure Consciousness, simply because the subjective self is illusory; it is Brahman playing itself as the individual soul, or jiva. The goal of the jiva is to merge as one with Brahman, but in reality, there never was a jiva to begin with. It's just a play of Brahman. The world, ie maya, is just a play ie lila,of Brahman. From the Buddhistic POV, the self that is the seeker is extinguished upon the realization of Nirvana.

I think you are misunderstanding what emptiness, ie 'Sunyata', is. It simply means that all phenomena is devoid, ie 'empty', of an inherent self-nature, and that is because there are no separate 'things', all 'things' being interconnected and co-arising with all other such 'things'. We are not a separate self called 'I'. 'I' is the creation of the mind, which is in turn is a self-created principle.

I disagree that the world is a projection of Brahman, but instead is Brahman itself, just as the gold necklace is none other than gold itself. The necklace is not being projected by the gold; the necklace ITSELF is gold. The world, including you and I, are none other than Brahman itself, playing itself as you and I and the entire Universe in the cosmic game of Hide and Seek.

There has never been something other than the Ultimate Reality, so the idea of a subjective self merging with Brahman is contradictory to your statement that there is nothing outside of Brahman, what you refer to as the Supreme Subject, but which I would prefer to refer to as the Supreme Identity, 'subject' implying an 'object', by which you have now created a duality. Without the illusion of a self, there can be no such subject/object split, Pure Consciousness being Everything as a single Reality. There is no such 'merging' with an Ultimate Reality, because that which is 'merging', has never been apart from Brahman even for a single moment. It's all a play of the divine nature. I think the problem is that you are still attached to the idea of a personal self called 'I', through which you see what you think to be 'reality'. If that is the case, please show me where this 'self' exists. Consciousness has no limiting factor called a 'self'. Its true nature is limitless, infinite, and eternal, not existing in Time, Space, or Causation, but as Pure Being, outside of and not limited by those conceptual frameworks.

Just as there is no 'whirler' of whirling water in a whirlpool, there is no such 'Projector' of the projected. You are creating a duality where no such split exists in Reality itself.

 

[Marcion]

I see that you are expressing an anthropomorphic view of Reality in referring to Brahman as 'he'. I give no credence to such a view. Brahman, as I have always understood its meaning, is Pure Consciousness, ie 'the ground of all Being', without an agent of consciousness.

The Supreme Consciousness in whose mind the universe is projected has no need for a physical body Himself, in fact there is no way that you can objectify the Supreme Consciousness. To us He is a complete mystery that is inaccesible to our limited minds. In that sense the Supreme Consciousness can never be an anthropomorfic projection. Nevertheless for the sake of philosophy He is linguistically objectified and it matters not how you address It/Him/Her because He is purely Subject anyhow and not in any way objectifiable (you can only "know or reach" Him by going through your own subject within rather than without). In fact our individual subject is already part of the Ultimate Subject or Supreme Consciousness but we are only under the illusion that we are separated or isolated from things we perceive as being "outside".

The difference between the buddhist and the hinduistic approach is merely one of method or approach. However unobjectifiable the Supreme Consciousness is, it is easier to get rid of the illusion of separation by falling in love with It/Her/Him, serving It/Her/Him and closely associating with this Supreme Consiousness despite the fact that the Supreme Consciousness cannot be objectified.

This is done by using a vehicle, the vehicle of a personification of a kind that is already much closer to or even "one" with the Supreme Consciousness, such as an elightened (tantric) teacher. Your association with this teacher is treated like the association with the Supreme Consciousness, for That is the real Teacher. In tantra no distinction is made between the Teacher and the Goal, the Supreme Consciousness. By associating with the Teacher or the Goal your individual consciousness eventually loses its feeling of separateness and merges with the Goal. The process to bridge this gap between the limited consciousness and the Limitless Consciousness is called mysticism and you bridge the gap by following a (tantric) cult, a certain spiritual life style.

The cult that Jesus started seems to also have been a tantric-mystic cult, not a Buddhist one because love or devotion for and serving the realised Master was part of this cult.