The harmony of SCIENCE and RELIGION

Status
Not open for further replies.

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
(The following is an excerpt from Abdul-Baha's Paris talks. For more quotes from Abdu'l-Baha on the harmony of science and religion, click here. Please note that I am not a follower of the Bahai faith. I just found this passage to be rather enlightened.)


There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.

How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? If he believes in spite of his reason, it is rather ignorant superstition than faith. The true principles of all religions are in conformity with the teachings of science.

The Unity of God is logical, and this idea is not antagonistic to the conclusions arrived at by scientific study.

All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed. . .Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which a man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.

All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time. Many religious leaders have grown to think that the importance of religion lies mainly in the adherence to a collection of certain dogmas and the practice of rites and ceremonies! Those whose souls they profess to cure are taught to believe likewise, and these cling tenaciously to the outward forms, confusing them with the inward truth.

Now, these forms and rituals differ in the various churches and amongst the different sects, and even contradict one another; giving rise to discord, hatred, and disunion. The outcome of all this dissension is the belief of many cultured men that religion and science are contradictory terms, that religion needs no powers of reflection, and should in no wise be regulated by science, but must of necessity be opposed, the one to the other. The unfortunate effect of this is that science has drifted apart from religion, and religion has become a mere blind and more or less apathetic following of the precepts of certain religious teachers, who insist on their own favourite dogmas being accepted even when they are contrary to science. This is foolishness, for it is quite evident that science is the light, and, being so, religion truly so-called does not oppose knowledge.

We are familiar with the phrases 'Light and Darkness', 'Religion and Science.' But the religion which does not walk hand in hand with science is itself in the darkness of superstition and ignorance.

Much of the discord and disunion of the world is created by these man-made oppositions and contradictions. If religion were in harmony with science and they walked together, much of the hatred and bitterness now bringing misery to the human race would be at an end.

Consider what it is that singles man out from among created beings, and makes of him a creature apart. Is it not his reasoning power, his intelligence? Shall he not make use of these in his study of religion? I say unto you: weigh carefully in the balance of reason and science everything that is presented to you as religion. If it passes this test, then accept it, for it is truth! If, however, it does not so conform, then reject it, for it is ignorance!

Look around and see how the world of today is drowned in superstition and outward forms!

Some worship the product of their own imagination: they make for themselves an imaginary God and adore this, when the creation of their finite minds cannot be the Infinite Mighty Maker of all things visible and invisible! Others worship the sun or trees, also stones! In past ages there were those who adored the sea, the clouds, and even clay!

Today, men have grown into such adoring attachment to outward forms and ceremonies that they dispute over this point of ritual or that particular practice, until one hears on all sides of wearisome arguments and unrest. There are individuals who have weak intellects and their powers of reasoning have not developed, but the strength and power of religion must not be doubted because of the incapacity of these persons to understand.

A small child cannot comprehend the laws that govern nature, but this is on account of the immature intellect of that child; when he is grown older and has been educated he too will understand the everlasting truths. A child does not grasp the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, but, when his intelligence is awakened, the fact is clear and plain to him.

It is impossible for religion to be contrary to science, even though some intellects are too weak or too immature to understand truth.

God made religion and science to be the measure, as it were, of our understanding. Take heed that you neglect not such a wonderful power. Weigh all things in this balance.

To him who has the power of comprehension religion is like an open book, but how can it be possible for a man devoid of reason and intellectuality to understand the Divine Realities of God?

Put all your beliefs into harmony with science; there can be no opposition, for truth is one. When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles - and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God.
 
Last edited:

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
It'd be nice if mainstream religious leaders (and followers) took this type of attitude with contentious topics such as this.

There's much more middle ground than many people on both sides of the argument(s) are willing to admit, and that is unfortunate.
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,010
Reaction score
10,707
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
Care to elaborate on that, DS?

In terms of this assertion from your original quote:
How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? If he believes in spite of his reason, it is rather ignorant superstition than faith. The true principles of all religions are in conformity with the teachings of science.

The Unity of God is logical, and this idea is not antagonistic to the conclusions arrived at by scientific study.
The argument I've heard from most of the far-right, conservative Christians I know would be that matters having to do with God are to be taken on faith, the Bible is a literal text, infallible, and True--so when the Bible seems to come into conflict with science (notably around issues of Creation/Evolution debate) then the Bible is Right, and Science is Wrong.

Once the debate is framed in those appeal-to-authority terms, there's not much ground left for discussion when the opposing side doesn't acknowledge the asserted infallability or absolute truth of the Bible.
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
The argument I've heard from most of the far-right, conservative Christians I know...

"Far-right, conservative Christians," like those you described do not represent the majority of Christian believers, nor do they represent the majority of religious persons.

Once the debate is framed in those appeal-to-authority terms, there's not much ground left for discussion when the opposing side doesn't acknowledge the asserted infallability or absolute truth of the Bible.

Which is why I said, "It'd be nice if mainstream religious leaders (and followers) took this type of attitude with contentious topics such as this."

The passage was referring to general monotheistic faiths (and religion in general), not specifically Christianity. Therefore, to frame the argument the passage is making strictly in terms of "far-right, conservative Christian" dogma would be rather fallacious.
 
Last edited:

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,010
Reaction score
10,707
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
It would, yes--and I don't disagree with the assertions from your originally quoted text.

I just rather suspect it's preaching to the choir--and I fear that the far-right, fundamentalist contingent is growing rapidly, at least according to some of the statistics I've seen. Which suggests they may well, indeed, soon be representative of Christianity in general, at least in the States.
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
I'd suggest that this fundamentalist segment isn't growing as rapidly as it may seem. Rather, many of the more "right-leaning" Christians have galvanized recently underneath a seemingly more fundamentalist religio-political movement, serving as a backlash against more "liberal" ideals. This, unfortunately, indirectly groups them in with the more far-right fundamentalists, making them all seem to be some sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of religious bedfellows, which is obscuring the lines between the fundi-wackos and the groups more representative of the majority of Christians.

Unfortunately, it is these fringe-type groups who usually get the most press which, following Gerbner's Cultivation Theory, makes it seem like the movement is larger or more influential than it actually is.

Besides, the guy who spoke the original passage said all of it over 100 years ago in Persia, so I doubt he was taking into consideration our current state of fundamentalism. :)
 
Last edited:

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,010
Reaction score
10,707
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
lol--that's fabulous!

I don't know the first thing about Bahai, so it didn't register that "Abdul-Baha, Paris Talks" wasn't a contemporary talk.
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
Sorry, that was a typo on my part. It should've read, "Abdul-Baha's Paris talks." Which, probably still doesn't make it clear that they happened a long time ago rather than recently.
 

rtilryarms

Crossbows and Handgonnes
Super Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
646
Age
67
Location
Fort Lauderdale
The Bible is a translated text, and it is full of philosophy and parables. When someone tells me that it is literal, infallible and true, they are speaking against the reality of the bible.

The true bible is not the excerpt that we all read, it is a fraction of that which has only been kept, found, or passed on verbally generation to generation.
As with all writings, if it is not read in whole, it is impossible to understand in part.

The Bible and all the others are excellent historical examples of how certain people reacted to and coped with the problems of their time.

It is great reading but the only word in it that is totally wrong is the last one – Amen – in the common understanding that it means “The End” or “So be it”.
That is what is wrong with all the religions, a stopping point is established when in fact, there is no end. We live the continuation of the Bible every day. It continues and old writings, then, become obsolete with the changing world and understanding.

That’s the Mike Theology. The Living Bible continues to this day and will never end.
We need to go no further back than today for guidance on how to respond to current events. History serves us best when we learn from bad examples and mistakes.


Everyone must be Mikelike… or…
 

erika

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
170
Reaction score
27
Location
Georgia
Rtilyarms is dead on.

As someone who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus (albeit rarely manifesting that fact), I have a real problem with the "infallibility of Scripture" assertion. After all, how many variants of the manuscripts are there? Which translation do you hold to? To me, the message of the Bible is key, not the words. The words convey a message true, but when Christians seek to defend every word in the Bible, they make a mistake. Much of the Bible was written in poetic form, many of the stories passed down through oral tradition. It is a philosophical/theological book, not a scientific one. As I read it, the authors of Genesis could care less how God made the world, whether through a gradual evolutionary process or a Cambrian explosion.

I think it's high time people stopped trying to prove they're right (be they Muslim, Christian or atheist). We all believe what we want. Any attempt to justify our beliefs with science or philosophy is just that, a post hoc rationalization.
 

Bravo

Socialitest
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
5,336
Reaction score
1,446
erika said:
I think it's high time people stopped trying to prove they're right (be they Muslim, Christian or atheist). We all believe what we want. Any attempt to justify our beliefs with science or philosophy is just that, a post hoc rationalization.

i disagree.

i think you can very certainly justify your beliefs thru reason and rationalization, and that is really the way that you "believe".

i went to catholic school, and my number one problem w it was that questions & critiques about the faith & about the divinity of jesus were sidestepped and chalked up as a "mystery".

that bothered me a lot.

which is why, like you, i enjoyed c.s lewis' mere christianity, i thought: finally a book by christians that actually tries to apply logic to faith.

b/c logic is something i can accept or reject. i can go thru the arguments and see what makes sense and what doesnt.

simply chalking up central dogmas as a "mystery" means you have to keep ppl in line via superstition, control, or even manipulation.

i think in the modern world, to be religious, means you have to be logical.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
The problem:
DrSpork said:
It is impossible for religion to be contrary to science, even though some intellects are too weak or too immature to understand truth.
The assumption that there can be a universal acceptance of the ideas in the speech is undone by this fact, alone.

What to do with those unwilling/unable to reach the appropriate level of 'enlightenmnet'...

And there is no way to be sure the leadership of any group, be it religious in nature or otherwise, posesses the necassary intellectual capabilites.

The speech could have been given 500, 1000, or even 2000 years ago and it would still be on point. The idea the mankind, as whole, can progress, with regard to fundamental natures, remains a pipe dream. Even Voltaire knew this, and that's saying something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.