The integration of science and religion

Art48

Below is a rather long (51 minutes) video of mine that describes in detail how to integrate science and religion. Comments appreciated, here and/or on YouTube!

108 - Religion 2.0 (Science+Religion)
https://youtu.be/PvFNc_TuGxs

Contents:
1) Welcome!
a. Alan Watts’ Quote
b. What is a Worldview?
2) Religion 1.0
a. Question: What happens after I die?
b. Question: Is Jesus God or just a prophet?
c. Question: According to Christianity, how can I be saved?
d. Religions diverge and have failed to find truth.
e. How religions decide what is true
f. Religion 1.0 and Science
g. Why believe in God?
h. What about Faith?
3) The Perennial Philosophy
a. Where religions intersect
b. Aldous Huxley’s “The Perennial Philosophy”
c. What is mysticism?
d. Mystics speak the same language
e. Essential ideas of the perennial philosophy
4) Religion 2.0
a. Fundamental idea: The cosmos is the manifestation of a Divine Ground
b. Fundamental idea: The cosmos is the manifestation of a Divine Ground
c. Fundamental idea: The cosmos is the manifestation of a Divine Ground
d. Does calling the ground “Divine” (i.e., God) make sense?
e. The Divine Ground is God, but not a God who is a Person
f. Gods who are Persons are personification of the one, universal God
g. Basic idea: 2. We can experience the Ground by a direct intuition
h. Direct experience of the Divine Ground
i. Basic idea: 3. Dual nature: transitory ego and a deeper, more enduring self
j. Basic idea: 4. Life’s ultimate purpose: to identify with eternal Self, unitive knowledge
5) Religion 2.0 and Science
a. Are the four basic ideas testable and repeatable?
b. Comparing Ontology (What Exists)
c. Comparing Epistemology (How to determine what is true)
d. Religion 1.0, Religion 2.0, and Science Compared
e. Religion 2.0 as a scientific theory
f. Conclusion: Religion 2.0 is compatible with science
6) Consequences and Related Topics
a. Does it matter?
b. The Contemplative Way
c. ogis and the Desert Fathers
d. Morality (Contemplative Morality)
e. Approaching God from within the world
f. Eternal Life and Salvation
g. Religion 1.0’s God are Personifications of the One
h. Rituals, Ceremonies, Entheogens
7) Afterword

alan1000

I respect the labour you have evidently put into this question, Art48, but before I invest 51 miinutes of my life in watching a video, I would like to see a summary in advance of how you have resolved the fundamental logical contradictions between the scientific and religious models of knowledge?

1. In religion, it is the greatest virtue to cling faithfully to your belief, no matter how persuasive, seductive, or conclusive the counter-arguments may seem to be; in science, this is the greatest "sin".

2. In religion, truth is absolute, incontrovertible, and underwritten by the revelation of a supernatural being; in science, there is no "truth"*, only a collection of approximations which seem to be reasonably applicable most of the time, but which may be overturned by fresh observations or insights at any moment.

3. In science, a theory or hypothesis is valued according to two fundamental criteria: does it account for the presently-known data? And, does it form a basis for predicting the future? This is important; thanks to this model, we have doctors, government, and aeroplanes. Religious knowledge cannot account for the known data (unless we admit "That's just the way God made it', which is trivial and non-informative); nor can it predict the future, except insofar as this can be guaranteed by thoughts and prayers, or belief in Divine Retribution, or a Judgement Day, or some such concept, none of which can be demonstrated to have a useful predictive value.

* I am speaking, of course, with regard to theory and hypothesis. Within a closed logical system such as mathematics, for example, it is possible to speak of a propostion as unconditionally true or false.

Prajna

In India science and religion have long been considered to be strongly related. In the West we tend to consider that only those things that can be objectively tested are considered to be subjects for scientific enquiry. In India they have long distinguished two disparate branches of science: the Inner Science and the Outer Science, one is a subjective enquiry and the other objective.

The philosophy of Vedanta bridges both.

In Vedanta everything is considered to consist of one consciousness--a great ocean of nothing but a single, unique, all encompassing consciousness that somehow can experience itself as individual consciousnesses communicating with each other.

So, if we imagine an ocean, you and I are merely waves on that ocean. This is something Alan Watts spoke about. Rather than our being in any real way separate from each other we are, in fact, not objects that can be regarded as separate but functions, processes of the one consciousness in the way that a wave is in no way (except conceptually) separate from the ocean, it is the ocean doing something.

I am afraid I have not found time to view your video yet but I hope my observations may offer you an alternative lens through which you may consider your proposition.

Love, peace, happiness and grace,
Swami Prajna Pranab

I like sushi

↪Art48

I will 100% watch thsi video. My intial response to the proposal is NO and ABSOLUTELY NO!

Let's see if there is anything you state that alters my view :)

Edit: "Video no longer available" :(

Pieter R van Wyk

Comments appreciated — Art48

You claim it is possible to integrate science and religion. This implies, I think, that you know, exactly, what is science and what is religion. Please share your definitions else comments will not be valid.

Astorre

↪Pieter R van Wyk

My apologies to the author of this thread, but my comment is somewhat off-topic.

Your earlier thread about defining the concept of "system" certainly contributed to my own understanding. In this thread, you ask about the definitions of "science" and "religion." Separately, I'd like to ask: have you ever found the most precise definition of any word? If so, please share.

Pieter R van Wyk

Your earlier thread about defining the concept of "system" certainly contributed to my own understanding. — Astorre

If my little contribution on the concept of system contributed to your understanding, then, surely, my effort is not in vain. And, this gives me hope.

In this thread, you ask about the definitions of "science" and "religion." Separately, I'd like to ask: have you ever found the most precise definition of any word? If so, please share. — Astorre

In my understanding, there is not such a thing as a precise definition of any word. There is my understanding and there is your understanding. So if we want to have a useful conversation or debate on something (for example the possibility of integrating science and religion), we first need to agree on some definitions of words (for example an agreement on what is science and what is religion).

If not, such a conversation or debate would quickly degenerate into a useless play with words.

Hence my request to share definitions.

Astorre

↪Pieter R van Wyk

I get your point and find it constructive.

As for the topic itself, the author posted a short version of his video, which I watched and found too speculative. I informed him about this in the previous topic. My questions did not change as a result of the increased time limit. I did not understand what the author meant by the definitions of the concepts.

Pieter R van Wyk

To my understanding:

"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible.

The integration of science and religion

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions