Is Science a Religion?

A classic Dawkins! -powerful, evocative, refreshing and thought-provoking.

But simplistic when it talks about faith.

Allow me to pull a Dawkins on Dawkins ... I would really appreciate if the author could answer this personally.

Faith is an unquestioning belief, sometimes after a thoughtful inquiry that returns nothing to the contrary. In an uncertain world, a strategy that works, or even one that does not fail miserably, is often considered preferable to risking a new one, especially in the case of slim survival margins. Classic case of exploration versus exploitation. Though the article lambasts believers thoroughly (and justifiably), it still does not address the all important question of why faith arises in the first place, and what importance does it have in human (personal and cultural) survival. There are many cases where a complicated behavior emerges out of rather simple actions, e.g Dawkins has discussed the emergence of altruism from purely selfish behavior. If one were to look at faith also as arising from a desire to enhance one`s personal survival, it would not look that ridiculous. Plus faith is not just the faith of a narrow minded zealot, it is also the faith of a humble and pious person.

One possible explanation: Faith, especially spirituality, confers on a believer a consistency of action, primarily coming from an enlargement of a point of view. To put it another way, the world is no longer considered to be a zero-sum game with obvious survival advantages conferred upon the believers. Believers themselves form communities that are tightly knit, further enhancing their survival.

Faith at the very least, even if ridiculous, does serve the purpose (even if unintentional) of conferring upon a believer a sense of purpose, an identity and provides a foundation for the definition of a society.

Re: Shahbaz

``welcome to enlightenment...``

That`s an unfair remark I think. ``Enlightenment`` is not new to many, many, many Chowkwallas in my opinion... :)

Dawkins: ``There`s all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.``

Alhamdolillah!!

Saad

``Though the article lambasts believers thoroughly (and justifiably), it still does not address the all important question of why faith arises in the first place, and what importance does it have in human (personal and cultural) survival.``

Dear Wasiq,

To answer the question of why religions have found such a universal role in human affairs from the times of the ancient paleolithic Mother Goddesses (Ishtar in Babylon, Isis in Egypt, Aphrodite in Greece) to today, would be to acknowledge the power such concepts have had through history in organizing human lives and society. Religion is a beautiful concept that frees everyone from the tedious task of developing their own sense of personal morality and gives them a set of rules to follow. In addition, it offers the comfort of an Afterlife, a sense of purpose to everything we do. If we were to believe that there was no Life after Death, then we would want Life before Death. One would need to have a high degree of intelligence to develop their own morality of right and wrong instead of the default pathway of everyone for themselves, since this would be the only time we have. Its either now, or never. A belief in divinity and Afterlife can make one practice delayed gratification, a powerful tool for getting people to do what is perceived in society’s best interest.

Given the simplicity of the concepts involved, it wouldn’t have taken the earliest thinking Woman or Man to invent religion pretty quickly. An interesting example from our home will illustrate this best.

Our daughter, now five and a half, has not received any religious instruction so far. This is partly because we are too lazy to do the Islamic School scene, partly because ours is a Shia/Sunni marriage, and we wanted her to make her own choice when she is older, and partly because we have felt (as Dawkins states) that early age religious indoctrination is a form of mental child abuse. So this puts us in the tough position of having to rationalize everything with her. If I think she is fibbing, for example about washing her hands after using the restroom, she is smart enough to realize that there is no way I can find out for sure whether she did or she didn’t. It is tempting to say that even if Ammi doesn’t know, Allah Mian will know, because He knows everything, and He’ll get angry with you. Instead, we have to say things like, lying is wrong, it can hurt people, its not good to lie. No way does that have the same effect as invoking an All-Knowing God. So maybe it was a woman who came up with the concept of a deity in the first place. It would be easy to get her kids to behave in socially desirable ways!

Yet another quandary arises in answering questions about death. My father passed away before our daughter was born. She sees pictures of him around the house and wants to know where he lives after he is dead. Should I say Nowhere, or should I say in Heaven? So Heaven needs to be born.

Recently, and much to our astonishment, she has starting invoking the concept of ‘Up’. When asked about why she did such and such, or how did she know about such and such, she says ``Up told me``. If we ask her, ``who told you about Up,`` she says, ``Up did.`` To me this is evidence of her own creation of the divine.

That’s why we have religion.

Anita

Religion is backbone of civilization.

Sigmond Freud, the atheist

The article like most western rationalist philosophies poses the debate as one of Science vs Religion. This debate was born out of the extremely rigid theology of medieval christianity as wielded by its powerful practioners and enforcers (namely the Pope & the Church) and the people with a rationalist mindset (namely the scientists of the 16th thru 18th centuries). This is an understandable reaction of the human mind when religion circumscribes human beliefs and practices to a narrow dogma as prescribed by one book or one prophet as the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions tend to do.



On the contrary in eastern religions and philosophy this rigidity in beliefs or practices is never enforced either by a chosen elite or a book or a prophet. There are a multiplicity of beliefs ranging from atheistic, agnostic to intensely devotional (of a particular form of `GOD`).

The idea that spiritual inquiry and practice can lead to answers of questions that transcend the senses and the intellect is one that is repeatedly emphasized by the examples of enlightenment by personages like say `the Buddha` and a host of others. This process of inquiry and the possibilty of seeing the truth (experiencing enlightenment if you please) is open to every individual. In this sense the so called `mystical` way is as much a science (in its methods) as any modern scientific endeavor.

Just as one needs an open mind, faith in the methods of science, an education in the methods of science and the tools to practice it in that order, an inquiry into the `trancendent` needs an open mind, faith in the methods of the inquiry (be it Bhakthi-devotion, Jnana-Wisdom, Karma-Virtuous living or Yoga-meditation), an education in its methods and the tools to practice it. If seen in this context (and not ONLY as a code of living) religion is not any different from science. It is the practitioners and their conduct that bring credit or discredit to that field of inquiry.

As to the authors appeal for a choice to the child to be able to make a decision when grownup, it is still present. But a child`s upbringing cannot be divorced from its cultural milieu whether it is Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Islamic, Secular etc. Science and its methodolgy cannot be a substitute for religion unless science can be brought down from its elitist nature (only taught in the modern school system for a limited number of years) and brought to a more personal level for the common man.

The debate of Science vs Religion is a false one. What would be more relevant is how one can bring the methodolgy of science to blow the cobwebs away from the more obscure aspects of various religions and revitalize them.

Venki

Good, but Incomplete......
THe author needs to distinguish between the types of faith. While his argument against blind faith is a good one, he overlooks the fact that scientists often pursue theories with only faith before they actually gather scientific evidence through experimentation to prove those theories.

Secondly, religion is an overloaded term. THe authors arguments are at best applicable to revealed religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Where truths are supposedly revealed by none other than God Itself and are often in one text which cannot really be questioned or analysed without raising the ire of the ``faithful`` and hence demand blind faith.
A lot of eastern religions are more spiritual and mystical in nature and not necessarily at odds with modern science.
As far as religions place in everyday life, the author only tackles religion in areas where he, growing up in the UK, was at cross-roads with it with regards to Science and morality/etics. And of course he makes very aptly make his point.
What about where religion is the Law, the culture, the politics ?

re: Wasiq
Since faith to me has a different meaning. I would like to attempt to answer your question by using religion instead. Religion needs to be studied as dated subject material. Study any religion and keep in mind the time, place of its conception and the prevailing socio-economic and socio-political forces. Its role as a catalyst in the `evolution` of that society becomes clear. Society afterall is a collection of humans, each driven by that survival instinct right down to their cells. Almost every religion in action at its nascent stages is progressive, reforming, revolutionary. However, with time as the society evolves further very often the religion does not. And it sometimes takes on an authoratative, traditional and even repressive form.

regards
RanaRansher

Whenever there is any discourse on religion, one thing should always be kept in mind. There`s a huge difference between say a christian and chritianity, or between a muslim and islam. The benefits and beauties of practicing a certain religion can only be felt within an individual, it cannot be explained to the outside world, for the connection or closeness for the individual with God is a sacred relationship and can only be influenced by one`s actions and thoughts, and on God`s will. The only way someone can feel the effects of religion is by sincerely seeking God, and not by blindly following certain rules and rituals.

Science is a tool by which true believers and praacticers of religion can investigate the beauty of God and His creation and thus furthur enhance their love of God. Unfortunately science is also a political tool by people in power. Can anyone dispute the fact that at-least half the scientists of the world, or say the majority of them, are investing their efforts in developing systems for anihalation of human kind. This is not the purpose of science surely!!!

``Muslim suicide bombers is that martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven -- and not just heaven but a special part of heaven where they will receive their special reward of 72 virgin brides.``

1. Suiside is not allowed in Islam.

2. No where in Quran it say that killing innocent people is allowed.

3. I do not know where the number 72 (it is not even a prime) is comming from but Quran talks about beautiful companions as reward in heaven (jannah) for everyone.

4. Atomic bomb, the greatest distructive force ever created by man through scientific knowledge. Ask people of Hiroshma and Nagasaki. How about smart bombs. Ask people of Iraq.

5. Was Hitler a minister, a pope, or a priest? According to your thesis he should be.

Oops! here comes a cruise missile....

Anita:

``Our daughter, now five and a half, has not received any religious instruction so far.``

At least teach her: There is no god but Allah. It is something commom in Shia`s and Sunni`s. It does take much time also like ABCD.

``To me this is evidence of her own creation of the divine.``

That`s called the ``Fitra``, the ``Amanah`` or the Trust in Islam. Don`t let it be destroyed which can happen very quickly in this materialistic world.

An excellent article. The secular humanist viewpoint needs to be presented more often, especially in forums like Chowk where religious belief often is assumed and goes unquestioned.

Re: Anita Zaidi

Excellent illustration of the nature of religion as a social construction and a tool for social and psychological control and cohesiveness. Its social aspect will always be important, but its doctrinal aspect we can all do without, now that we have science.

Re: aasheikh

The majority of scientists working for the annihilation of humankind?? What a load of crap! Substantiate such blanket, provocative statements with FACTS before you malign an entire group of people. Only someone completely ignorant of the scientific community`s work would say something like this.

Re: Rana Ransher and Venki

Excellent point about the distinction between Abrahamic religions and Eastern religions with regard to the scientific method. However, I would argue that even spirituality, mysticism, and tanscendentalism are at odds with science as an epistemology. Spiritual and mystical experiences are completely subjective, only meaningful to the person who experiences them, and are no proof of `Truth` to anyone else. Mysticism is NOT a science in that a mystical observation or experience cannot be verified independently by another party. There is no basis of measurement, no universal standard, so its method is not scientific.

The fact is, all we have are our senses, our intellect, and our emotions - all the result of biological evolution. `Spirituality` is nothing more than a mixture of fear of the unknown and of death, wonder at the power and beauty of nature, hope, and love - very EARTHLY human emotions.

Mysticism and spirituality represent mankind`s pre-scientific search for unity in the universe, perhaps a result of our evolution which enabled us to discern patterns and processes as a survival mechanism. Now, science addresses our understanding of unity through its discoveries of universal laws and principles. But it does so in an objective way which is accessible to and verifiable by all peoples across time and culture, something which religious mysticism fails to do.

Science is the only universal epistemology and the only plausible one for a globalized, pluralistic world. Religion, spirituality, mysticism, and the like are all merely superstitions suffering from delusions of grandeur.

I could not agree with Dawkins or Kafir any more. Without wishing to offend anybody, and yet realizing that this may cause offence, I must state that I like many others have come to the considered view that all religions (including Eastern mysticism etc.) are entirely man-made and subjective. Science and the Western intellectual tradition are of course also man-made, but they seek consensus based on empirical data, which we can talk about and dispute, as opposed to ``mystical`` experience, ``illumination`` or ``enlightenment,`` all of which cannot be disputed because they are inherently subjective.

It is tragic that I, a person of Pakistani origin but born and brought up in the West, should fear writing what I have written above (or even admitting it to my mother) because some may view it as a betrayal of my roots. I want to make my position absolutely clear. Although I have lived in Britain and the States, I am an ardent supporter of the cause of Pakistanis and Indians. I love the culture I was brought up in: speaking Urdu, listening to ghazals, going to Indian movies, dressing up in shalwaar kameez, accommodating the many customs and politenesses of a genteel culture. I am aghast and ashamed of the poverty and igorance from which many Pakistanis and Indians suffer, and I hope to do all in my power to help change this situation.

However, I also no longer believe in Islam, and am a critic of most organized religions. And I will not hesitate to lambast the corruption, ignorance, stupidity, backwardness (call it what you will, p.c. or not p.c.) that pervades Pakistani society and government (and Indian, but to a lesser extent in my view). I do not think that these attitudes and actions of mine make me a traitor to Pakistan or India, or a traitor to my culture. Self-criticism, whether in an individual or in a society, is a sign of maturity and confidence in my view.

I have read many interesting articles and pieces at this website. It always restores my belief in a successful future for my generation of Pakistanis and Indians living abroad and back in Asia (I`m 26!). But I think it bears emphasizing that we should all create an atmosphere (both at this website and in our communities) in which all views and opinions, especially religious or political, should be open to reasoned dispute and argument, without critics having to fear being labelled ``kafirs,`` ``heretics,`` ``traitors,`` or even ``ABCDs,`` and also on the other side, ``fundamentalists`` or ``religious fanatics.`` As long as we do not oppress each other, we can all stand by side and build stronger, more prosperous communities, regardless of our views.

Sajid.

Re: Sajid:

Well said. You need have no shame saying any of it. And, damn it, be frank and tell it to your mamma too. I remember when I did (decades ago) there was a lot of hot air and smoke at first, but if you are firm in your convictions, your loved ones do come around to accept you any way.

Lots of highly intelligent people have bent over backwards justifying why religion is right, or good or necessary.

The question of religious faith being ``right`` is quite independent of whether or not it is ``useful`` as a social device.

If we take the fundamantal theologies of the world`s major religions we see that they are mutually contradictory. Thus, obviously, AT MOST, only ONE of them can be entirely true, if indeed any are true at all. Now which one is the `true` one depends on where one is born. It is therefore only based on baser emotional instincts that are developed when one is young and unable to think independently. It has little to do with truth.

I contend, that not only are the religions flawed in their cosmic views, they are also far more dangerous and harmful than they are useful. The history of humanity is replete with examples of the horrendous cost paid by our species in its infantile pursuit of, and dogged devotion to, religious faith.

The `faithful` mindset prevades all. It goes far beyond supernatural superstitions. It also penetrates the materialistic mind. The `church of reason` can be just as dogmatic as the traditional faiths` superstitions. Marx said it is the opium of the masses. I say, it is one of the biggest curses of the human condition.

...SR

Kafir,

Let me ask you this.

U say that all we have are our senses, intellect and emotions. Would you be so kind as to point out which one is the result of the other.

Did we acquire senses first to end up with intellect and emotions or did we go through the intellectual path to `come to our senses` and realize that we have senses we can use.

It is imperative that we make the distinction here that one of the three is the origin of the other two. I hope you can give me some input as I am lost at this puzzle.

I am sorry guys. I realize that I should have posted these two questions together but I had not read SR`s reply until after I had replied to kafir.

SR, I was wondering if you can perhaps shed some more light on your,IMHO, a highly subjective statement that,

`If we take the fundamantal theologies of the world`s major religions we see that they are mutually contradictory`

Which religions are we talking about?

If you are talking about the big three, what are the contradictions?

What do you mean when you say `fundamental theologies`?

I am also unclear on whether you feel that organized religion in its entirety is evil or that the presence of a God is implausible?

I would just like to hear what you have to say. I know what you are refering to here but to carry on this discussion a little further I would like to make sure of your stance.

It is silly to equate religion with science. Religion is faith. Science is rational and analytical inquiry. They do not, and need not, agree.

re: kafir
While I agree with most of what you say, I feel you are confusing my reply with Venki`s. I not saying that eastern religions, in their spirituality and mysticism, are scientific or a science. I am saying they are not necessarily at odds with science. To take an example, a lot of the doctrine of Buddhism falls under psychology and is even seen as psychotherapy. A lot of these religions deal with things which science is not dealing with. Hence there is not necessarily a conflict with sceince. I was, of course, bringing this up with regards to the article where the author seems to be having a science vs religion debate and only looking at where revealed religions are at odds with science. Some of the eastern religions in their philosophy encourage self discovery and experimentation. This does not mean that it is scientific. After the experimentation, spirituality and mysticism do NOT provide any proof of their theories. However, they are not contradicting what science is saying either. In the 70`s and 80`s a lot of Western scientists wrote books about reconciling Western science and Eastern philosophies (which come from the religion). A lot of times these scientists actually drew inspiration from eastern philosophies within eastern religions (re: Tao of Physics - Frijtoff Kapra (sp?)). On the other hand, you are more likely to run into a believer of eastern religions who will claim any and all scientific achievements as a rehash of what their `text` said long time ago. Of course this is also based on just interpretation and can not be proved. Read the book `Tao of Physics`. You will at least get a kick out of it, and will also see what I am saying.

I, especially, agree with the line ``Science is the only universal epistemology and the only plausible one for a globalized, pluralistic world.`` Simply because it goes beyond just faith, and experimentation is required to culminate in some evidence of the theory. BTW I am also sensing that the word `faith` has different connotations within eastern religions and revealed religions.
Afterall, a scientist also pursues his/her theories and experiments with as much `faith` until the theory is proven. Only after that does it stop being just a belief (ie theory) and becomes a Law.
I believe modern day science, psychology, sociology, secularism, humanistic law & order, etc. should all provide for society what different religions had provided for different societies at various times. So the debate is beyond just religion vs science. Religion needs to reconcile itself in todays pluralistic, global world in more areas than just science.

re: Sajid
I agree with pretty much everything you say. But to do that it is important to start by demystifying religion as we may know it. And you would have to separate the culture, the spirituality, the law, the politics, psychology, even the foriegn policy ;-) from religion first. That itself will be rejected by the orthodox who are interested in a text and only their own interpretation of it. They are not exactly tolerant of different interpretations of that text, and will also quote the same text to label you blasphemous. ( I think I may have just commited blasphemy by saying that ....)

regards
RanaRansher

Re: afrasiyab



``U say that all we have are our senses, intellect and emotions. Would you be

so kind as to point out which one is the result of the other.``

All three owe their existence to the soul, consciousness or life force or whatever you want to call it. When you die none of the above three exist.

Venki