Are science and religion compatible, or oppositional philosophical approaches?

Jack Cummins

I am aware that there is a big debate on science on the forum at the moment. However, the question I am raising is a bit on the side of this. It is not purely about whether science is beneficial or not but, to what extent ideas can be fit into that context, and especially whether the divide can even be collapsed into the division between religion and science?

Part of my wondering is connected to the way in which I see that on this site, there are many advocating science, but, at the same time , threads on Plato and other writers who did not come from a scientific perspective are still of major significance. So, I am asking whether there are certain ideas which are relevant beyond all questions of historical knowledge and scientific developments in knowledge. I am aware that this could even connect to Plato's ideas of forms, but I am not certain to what extent this is the key aspect of my question.questions

I am raising the question of historical basis of philosophical ideas, and to what extent our interpretations of these are considered to be important. I think that scientific knowledge is part of this, but not convinced that it is the only aspect, because it is about whether there are ideas which override questions about science, especially as this is advancing and changing.

original2

↪Jack Cummins

It seems to me that historical context should be included in the process of idea evaluation to the degree depending on the goal of the evaluation, ergo your question seems a bit nebulous to me. Can you give us your take on it?

Jack Cummins

↪original2

I am writing in 2021 and try to keep up to date with science and ideas in philosophical thinking, as I am sure that most people on this probably do. I am not saying that we, like have no basis f all human beings do are coming from a certain historical perspective. I am not trying to undervalue our knowledge, but do wonder how any human being at any point in history is able to say that, at that moment in time, they are at the supreme point of evaluation of all previous views. But, I am not really trying to point to such an ultimate point being impossible, but querying how we go beyond the specifics, and how we can look to exploring elements which go beyond historical limitations of interpretation.

Jack Cummins

↪original2

I would add that I am not trying to go down the pathway of cultural relativism I am trying to think about ideas in a way which is able to transcend the dichotomies of the limitations of the specifics of varying cultural and historical contexts. This is more in relation to universal aspects or foundations of ideas and value systems, which are not restricted to the historical and cultural biases.

Zenny

@Jack Cummins
I think certain principles are valid regardless of context.
For instance art,aesthetics and religion/spirituality are valued in any era. The human condition is the same regardless of science,engineering or the political landscape.

Jack Cummins

↪Zenny

I realise that you are almost completely new to the forum, so it is a privilege to engage with you and hope you continue to participate in the forum. I have just raised the question today because I like to think a bit beyond the tick boxes of current thinking, which just seems to be about the ongoing celebration of science. I am not against science and not even convinced of that the fierce battle between religion and science should be at the centre of philosophical debate.

I read the ideas from writers of many eras. I do realise that neuroscientists and other scientists capture important knowledge, and would not wish to underplay such ideas. However, when I look back at the history of philosophy, I do wonder how it all fits together, with a view to how we, those before us, and those to come will see it. Each of us comes with limits, but, even though I am only one voice on the forum, I believe that it is important to look at philosophy from the widest possible angles, not just in terms of science, but in connection with the history of ideas.

Zenny

@Jack Cummins I read a lot of your posts before joining. I would argue that the general method of mystics and philosophers is Meditation. And this method is the way to true knowledge and insight. This knowledge is eternal,but different mystics have had different motivations and aptitudes. For instance plato was about political control. Buddha was about the practical path to human happiness and flourishing. Both didn't have modern academia but expressed more real knowledge than the whole of mainstream science today.

Jack Cummins

↪Zenny

I am interested to hear that you have read posts of mine before joining. I am interested in meditation and I am a bit mystical by nature, but try to balance this with critical analysis, based on philosophy and other disciplines. I am still contemplating this title, and trying to edit it to open up the fullest discussion possible. Anyway, I welcome you to the forum, and hope it provides you with scope for thinking and raising of questions. I believe that each person who comes to the forum asks and opens up questions in a unique way.

Zenny

@Jack Cummins Thank you for the welcome.
How about,can philosophy reveal eternal truths that science cannot? That seems to be the gist of your title?
I must say I feel meditation can reveal eternal truths.
Modern science and philosophy don't even believe in eternity!

Jack Cummins

I am sorry for playing around and editing this title. In the first time in months I have been able to go out and have a couple of drinks in a pub, so is it surprising that I have sat, using my phone, writing a thread? In doing so, I ended up engaging with a couple of fairly new members, and edited my title, so I will leave it for now, and see if my current title is of any worthwhile discussion.

Zenny

@Jack Cummins Of course,one could say there is a three way opposition between philosophy,science and religion?!

Jack Cummins

↪Zenny

The question of eternal truths is an important area for discussion, and you may even wish to start a thread on the topic. I do practice meditation, but not as often as I think would be helpful. I often put off meditation until I feel up to it, but sometimes do it when I really don't know what else might help. When I was lying awake in the night, knowing that I had to go to work in the morning, even if I had not slept at all, was often the point where I turned to trying to meditate, even if it was in bed rather than sitting on a hard backed chair.

I will finish discussion for now, and you may find many interesting discussions beyond mine. Some may see science and religion as united in the quest for knowledge, whereas others may see it as being about opposition, but I will stop speaking and see if anyone is even interested in my question.

Jack Cummins

↪Zenny

That is interesting as well. I actually wrote two threads already on religion already. You can look them up if you are interested, if you look at my profile and discussions. Really, I think that I am better at asking questions than answering them, but I do believe that both are important . But the three way opposition is important and it may be that you will ask the questions which will I have not yet vocalised.

Zenny

@Jack Cummins I think all 3 are in some ways oppositional as they are different methods of knowledge.
Dialectics. Reductionism. And real religion being intuitive,mystical and meditative.
Science and philosophy do not adequately use direct human experience and seem to be obsessed with the misuse of the intellect.
Personal or mystic religion uses almost entirely the intuitive powers,personal experience and meditation.
Primary truth is never second hand. So it has to be first hand,which rules out science and philosophy.

Jack Cummins

↪Zenny

I think that all the different approaches point to possible methods and conclusions. I see it as a very complex area, but others may not see it that way. Shortly, I will probably log off for today, but it will be interesting to see if anyone responds to you or to me. There are so many debates on the forum, so I would say that if no one else participates with us we should not feel too downcast, but I hope to interact with you again, and hope that you find many people to engage with. I think that there is such a variety of viewpoints available, and that is probably why I continue to engage on this site.

Jack Cummins

↪Zenny

I would also recommend that you read the thread on the praise of science, because it the popular thread and it is possible that no one will ever look at, or make any comment, on the thread which I have which I have started because this site is extremely competitive, and I am sure that many on this site see me as a complete waste of space entirely.

However, if you wish to interact with me that is fine because I am willing to explore all areas, even if they are way beyond the scope of the popular areas of debate. My own interaction with the site is such that I think that the people who consider themselves as important on the site probably see me as of no significance at all. Nevertheless, I get loads of replies daily, and do my best to reply to them.

counterpunch

↪Jack Cummins

Theoretically compatible.

Jack Cummins

↪counterpunch

It is a good question to what extent they are compatible or opposed. I have seen some threads on the site which try to see religion and philosophy working together. However, on the other hand, I see so much antagonism between the two on the site. This makes me confused. I think that the whole area is the biggest muddle in philosophy, which is why I am raising it.

counterpunch

↪Jack Cummins

I think it was open to the Church, in 1635, to accept science as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation - on the basis of St Augustine's, (or was it St Thomas Aquinas') assertion that divine truth and rational truth cannot be in conflict. If you believe reality is Created, and science is valid knowledge, then scientific knowledge is God's word - decoded by man, and religion would be an ongoing revelation. Technology would have been developed and applied in relation to this emerging understanding - as morally authoritative knowledge, and occurred as confirmation of God's blessings. Instead, Galileo's hypothetico-deductive methodology was decried as suspect of heresy, and science was rendered amoral - and abused by government and industry. Huge mistake that brings us to the brink of extinction.

Jack Cummins

↪counterpunch

I am sure that there have been great mistakes in the way the Church has interpreted science. My own perspective is really to try to especially in mistakes in understanding. This is essential to the development of strategies which focus on addressing the issues of our time, especially ecology and thinking about the wellbeing of future generations.

counterpunch

I am sure that there have been great mistakes in the way the Church has interpreted science. My own perspective is really to try to go beyond mistakes and rifts in understanding, with a view to working towards ways of understanding, especially in relation to the development of strategies which focus on addressing the issues of our time, especially ecology and think about the wellbeing of future generations. — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure. Maybe it was necessary to science to make that absolute distinction between divine and rational knowledge. It's very difficult to walk the path not taken. I'm not a theologist, I'm a philosopher. I say "I think it was open to the Church..." But maybe this is how its meant to be. What is the WORD anyway?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jack Cummins

↪counterpunch

I think that it is a very blurry line. Initially, I began reading Plotinus today with a view to discussion with @Apollodorus in relation to a thread which I began a few days ago. However, the more I I think about it, the whole question of thinking about the divine becomes more blurry. However, my own foreclosure on such matters remains because both the language of those who speak of the divine and those who speak of neuroscience seem caught up in knots.

@Madfool has already created a thread based on my own thoughts about philosophical knots and philosophical dangers, but, from my own perspective, philosophy, especially in connection between the areas arising in the area between science and religion is like being completely entangled in knots, and my own quest is about trying to see ways of disentangling these knots.

counterpunch

I think that it is a very blurry line. Initially, I began reading Plotinus today with a view to discussion with Apollodorus in relation to a thread which I began a few days ago. However, the more I I think about it, the whole question of thinking about the divine becomes more blurry. However, my own foreclosure on such matters remains because both the language of those who speak of the divine and those who speak of neuroscience seem caught up in knots. @Madfoolhas already created a thread based on my own thoughts about philosophical knots and philosophical dangers, but, from my own perspective, philosophy, especially in connection between the areas arising in the area between science and religion is like being completely entangled in knots, and my own quest is about trying to see ways of disentangling these knots. — Jack Cummins

I'm trying to survive.

tim wood

religion — Jack Cummins

You have to decide what religion is. On the face of it, religion retreats from science, whatever science being, religion cannot be. What more is there to say?

tim wood

↪Jack Cummins

Philosophy of religion? What, exactly, is that?

Jack Cummins

↪tim wood

I am going to bed for today, but I will reply tomorrow.

Jack Cummins

↪counterpunch

Yes, I am trying to survive too, but logging out for today, and will see what discussion arises tomorrow.

Pfhorrest

↪Jack Cummins

I’m not sure if I understand the question correctly, but I would say that there definitely are questions which are neither within the domain of science nor exclusively within the domain of religion either; and also the questions that are within science’s domain can be (and often are) also approached in a religious way as well.

Science and religion are different approaches to answering questions, and to that extent are incompatible (despite that some people turn to science for answers to some questions and religion to answers for other). But the domain of science is also narrower than that of religion, as in there are some questions that science offers no attempts to answer, while religion sometimes does.

Such as this very question. Science will give no answer to it, because it’s beyond the domain of science. Religion will give an answer to it, one that says to at least sometimes turn to religion. If one were to answer that one should not turn to religion on this matter, that would be an answer to a question beyond the scope of science, but also counter to the methods of religion.

180 Proof

↪Jack Cummins

What exactly is the question?

Jack Cummins

↪180 Proof

I have just got home, but I am aware that my basic questions is how do we understand the basis of our knowledge about constructing experience of one experience of consciousness, and its source? I am not saying that this is a perfect question, but it does seem to me to be one which is relevant for thinking about who we are individually, in connection to a larger perspective about identity and life, from a any larger perspective, whether it is religious or scientific.

Jack Cummins

↪180 Proof

I am logging out for tonight, but I am thinking that the main issue to be addressed is the underlying source of consciousness, whether it is explained in religious or scientific terms.

Are science and religion compatible, or oppositional philosophical approaches?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions