Rick:
Let me add my two cents to the religion vs. science discussion.
One way to define science is to define it as a methodical approach to acquiring
knowledge and understanding the world around us. From this perspective, science
is not the actual knowledge that is gained through the approach, but rather
it is the process that is used to acquire the knowledge as well as the
assumptions that underlie the process. Knowledge can actually be gained
through a number of different ways, but the scientific approach require that
knowledge be acquired methodically; in other words, the scientific method is
based upon evidence rather than belief. Viewed from such a perspective, the
process of science and the assumptions of the scientific method seem quite
static, even though the knowledge gained from that method is dynamic and
changeable.
In the examples you gave, what you called scientific "tenets" could perhaps
be more accurately called scientific "beliefs" that were held during a
particular period of time. That is, they were believed at one time, but
have changed over time as we have acquired more knowledge and information.
My guess, however, is that the process of the scientific method, and the
assumptions that underlie the scientific method (i.e., that we can better
understand the world around us through the scientific method), have not
changed dramatically. In that case, the assumptions of science are static,
the knowledge gained by science are dynamic.
I would argue that the same is probably true of religion. Let me use the
example of Christianity since that is what I am most familiar with. It
would seem that the basic tenets you listed are indeed the underlying
assumptions of Christianity (and perhaps are what many biblical scholars
would consider core Christian beliefs). Yet, although those beliefs have
remained static, many other aspects of the religion have been more dynamic.
It used to be that Christians believed that slavery was justified by the
Bible. Today, the majority would argue that all people were created in the
image of God and thus are of equal status. One of the present debates in
many denominations regards the role of women. Some denominations believe
that women should have a limited role in public worship, whereas other
believe that women and men should have equal opportunities in this area. In
that sense, the way we understand the world through Christianity and what we
consider to be "truth" has changed and is continuing to change, even though
the core underlying assumptions have been relatively static.
Of course, we could probably be even more general and say that the
underlying assumptions of religion/sprituality is that we are able to
transcend ourselves and in the process acquire greater knowledge and
awareness of the "truth." Is this the common denominator of all religions?
At any rate, perhaps the core underlying assumptions of religion and science
are static, whereas the knowledge that we gain about how the world works has
been, and continues to be, dynamic.
O.K., maybe I gave my ten cents rather than two cents. I'm not an expert in
the history of science or religion; these are just my musings on a slow
afternoon. I'm just glad that there is room for both science and religion.
Louis wrote:
> Rick, got a question. You say that religion is static. What is so static
> about religion?
The theological basis is, by necessity, unchanging.
A couple examples:
Christianity: The basic tenets of Christianity are that (1) A supreme deity
exists that was responsible for the creation of the Universe and of all
life; (2) That this being is omnipotent and omnipresent and has a direct
interest in the relations between and individual actions of all living
things; (3) humans are possessed of a soul that will be judged after death
to be "good" or "evil" and will either be rewarded or punished accordingly
and; (4) that this supreme being had a child (through an immaculate
conception) who died to attone for the sins of all humankind. There are many
other tenets, of course, but these are the core ones.
Buddhism: The basic tenets of Buddhism are that (1) A man (Siddhartha
Guatama) was enlightened by his meditational experiences under a Bo tree
after a period of self-mortification; (2) the Buddha came to realize that
all life is sorrow and that only through transcending the illusion of maya
(reality) does one transcend this state of sorrow and acheive a state of
bliss; (3) that so long as one continues to perceive the illusion of maya as
reality, one will continue to participate in a cycle of death and rebirth.
Again, there are many other tenets, but these are central to all forms of
Buddhism (Tantric, Mahayana, Theraveda, Hinayana, etc.).
Compare these to the tenets of science from the same period of time
(2000-2500 years ago):
1. The Earth is composed of four elements (air, earth, water, fire).
2. These elements cause all disease, constitute all matter, and serve as
the principles of existance.
3. That which is above is like unto that which is below; i.e., to cause an
effect it is only necessary to mimic the successful conditions in a similar
setting (sympathetic magic).
4. Bleeding an individual is a necessary part of treating him or her
medically.
5. The constellations can be used to fortell the future.
6. "Insanity" is the result of demonic possession.
Again, there are many other principles that could be presented, but these
will do.
Today (2000-2500 years after these religious and scientific tenets were set
forth) those principles of religion remain essentially unchanged
(interpreted differently in some instances, but fixed in principle), and are
hence static. None of these principles of science, on the other hand, is
still viewed as either accurate or scientific.
Unless you argue that the principles of these--and all other--religions are
completely accurate, and thus justify the lack of any change (and the denial
of changeability inherent in the religions themselves), which means you
agree that the world was created 6000 years ago, that a man could live
inside the digestive tract of a whale for days unharmed, that evolution is
invalid, and that a woman can be impregnated completely without contact with
male sperm, or a similar set of beliefs in the case of religions other than
Christianity (used only because it is the most familiar to the readers of
this group as a whole), by necessity you have to admit that religion is
static, rather than dynamic.
There are many valuable features to religion, but a dynamic nature is not
one of them.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Michael Callen, the Flirtations, "Everything Possible"
