WHY IS RELIGION NECESSARY?
AN EXCHANGE
JAMES R. FISHER, JR., Ph.D.
© January 6, 2017
A READER WRITES:
Regarding this subject, Loren Eiseley writes in “The
Unexpected Universe” that man is a “… creature
who persists in drawing sharp, definitive lines across the indeterminate face
of nature.”
That is what man has done with religion as well as
science. The Greeks created gods that behaved like humans with super
power. The Jews, Christians and Muslims follow a god who is essentially a
dictator who committed acts that if they were committed by a human would be
found abominable.
From the little knowledge I have about various
religions, Buddhism is the only religion without gods and puts the
responsibility of existence on humans. I have always felt if religion
makes someone happy that is great as long as a person does not try to force
others to believe as they do. Even the Buddha was like that.
As soon as he thought he had found the answer, he
tried to convert others, and the power structure supposedly helped him because
it kept the people they controlled from rebelling. I do not know why we exist,
and I doubt anyone else does either. If they claim they know, then they
are making it up. Something that has been done multiple times.
By the way, I think you would like reading some of
Loren Eiseley. People compare his writing to Thoreau, but I think he is a
better writer and much more interesting.
DR.
FISHER RESPONDS:
This is an excellent and enlightening summary of a
relevant point of view.
I agree. I think I would enjoy Loren Eiseley's
"The Unexpected Universe."
In my missive (Why
is Religion Necessary?), I depart from religion to include science and
mathematics for reason.
Curiously, science and mathematics have evolved in a
strange and somewhat unsettling way. The connotations of
"absolutes" more generally associated with religion have come to
tarnish these disciplines if obliquely.
Science and mathematics appear to lack the openness
they once enjoyed and my wonder is it because they have become revered like a
religion.
Two years ago, I drove up to the University of
Florida to attend a lecture in inorganic chemistry in which my granddaughter
was a student. This introductory course in the chemistry curriculum had taken
on the rarified air of a Roman Catholic Pontifical encyclical, meaning it was
dogmatic and incomprehensible.
I felt for the students who were disengaged (many on
their iPhones) and seemingly mystified by the obtuse nature of the chemistry
presentation. I talked briefly with the professor, who showed little
interest in the plight of the students or their confusion, but was more
interested in complaining about "his huge teaching load."
When I was myself a chem student, I remember with
fondness the ability of my professors to present the complex material in a
format that was like reading music and sensing the rhythm of notes as if a
symphony. I would come away marveling at the conceptual clarity of it
all.
Stated another way, it made sense to me and I could
build on that experience in future chemistry courses. In contrast, my
granddaughter's chemistry lecture had the taste of bitter medicine. Not
fun!
Obviously, science has changed, indeed, it has
changed a lot given the advancements in knowledge. But are professors too
lazy, or too wrapped up in their own research to make -- in this case --
chemistry interesting?
We are perhaps in our fifth or sixth or is it our
seventh "Scientific Revolution"? This makes it difficult
(perhaps) to develop palatable teaching models. But for a young mind, it
is important to see the connection between the information presented and its
ultimate usefulness.
This brings me back to the religion-science
connection. Religions take the high ground as if they have the answers in
"absolute" terms to everything. It gets a bit chary when
science follows that lead.
I am now reading on Quantum Mechanics (QM) and some
of the problems it is encountering having been treated with religious zeal for
decades. Einstein was heavily criticized, after setting the foundation
for Q.M., for backing away from a blanket endorsement of the new approach to
physics.
It will be quite healthy if Q.M. doesn't become as
defensive as religions and remains open to new interpretations with the
possibility of scuttling major portions of it. The same applies to
"string theory," another controversial theoretical construct.
Were religions, all religions, open to
reinterpretation and reassessment perhaps religious wars would decline.
But alas, once politics becomes an important part of
the justification then all bets are off. This is equally true of science.
I enjoy reading biographies of people who have broken through the barrier
of convention. But once they become political, once they defend their
breakthroughs at all cost, then everything deteriorates including their credibility.
But I guess this should be expected as we humans are
pretty touchy when our egos are challenged.
Incidentally, you are the only person who has gone
to the trouble of posting your comments after reading "Why is religion
necessary," when I am used to receiving many such comments while choosing
to answer only one or two. Go figure!
Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment