A post by Susan at Spinning reminded me of a book I recently read, written by the Dalai Lama — The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. The Dalai Lama has nurtured a lifelong interest in science, and this book explores the gaps and meeting places between religion and science, in what I found to be a thoughtful and profound treatise. It was interesting to read how a religious leader views science, which sometimes threatens his long held beliefs and at other times seems to support them. Granted, Buddhism is one of the least dogmatic religions, and Buddhists don’t believe in a personal God or a specific creation myth, as far as I can discern from this and other readings, so he tends to be much more flexible toward science than other religious leaders might be.
I’ve often seen science as exploring the underpinnings, materials, and physical characteristics of the same great work of art (the Universe) that religious leaders and philosophers explore the ideas and impulses behind. Both, at their best, explore the best ways to live within that great work. To me their goals seem to mesh perfectly, so long as greed, dogma, and power plays don’t get in the way. But then I don’t have a set religious belief to try to fit everything into. I think the more set in concrete one’s beliefs are, in either science or spiritual teachings, the more difficult it may be to see the common ground and bridge the gaps. Flexibility is important, and we already know that some of the greatest scientific discoveries are results of either accidents or imagination. Einstein considered imagination more important than knowledge —
“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Perhaps the most important way we’re made in any creator’s image is that we’re creative ourselves. It’s that very imaginative nature that can enable us to be flexible and love the mystery of life, rather than try to impose steadfast answers on others.
I think science and religion need to remain in their proper places. Science is about our physical world and what is knowable. Religion deals with the non-physical and unknowable. Science can’t disprove religion and religion can’t disprove science. The dichotomy strikes me as clear and why so many people confuse the roles of science and religion, and get upset, is beyond me.
Eric, they can’t help but come together when religion claims God created the universe and science proves otherwise. But there’s still room for faith-as well as doubt-in both theology and the physical sciences.
Eric — I agree that the two should remain separate, in education and in any official recognition. But in our minds they do merge, to whatever degree we embrace either or both, and I think we have to find a way to answer that in a philosophical discussion, if not a scientific one.
The main reason I mention the Dalai Lama’s book is that he’s a religious leader who’s willing to change his beliefs when science brings clearer understanding. I admire his ability to do that, when many fundamentalists refuse to change their beliefs in the face of strong scientific evidence, and even attempt to create their own version of science, which only serves to delude a lot of people. But then we see the same thing in business, when studies are held back or misrepresented in order to get a product approved, out of greed.
Susan mentioned in a comment to her post that skepticism is required on both sides. I agree with that.
My way of merging both is in creativity. We do it especially well in fiction, when we take facts as we know them and create a story around those facts based on what might be true, or could be true.
If the myths of the world arose from people’s need to explain things through story, that would explain why story continues to be so important to us today, because in spite of the advances of science, we still have holes to fill in, in our understanding of the world and life.
But no, I don’t think religion should be allowed to override scientific fact, or be mingled in any organized way. Each has its place in (or outside) government and education.