Ken Hurley
Beyond the door
There's peace, I'm sure
And I know there'll be no more
Tears in heaven
Would you know my name
If I saw you in heaven?
Would you be the same
If I saw you in heaven?
Those lyrics are from the Grammy-winning song, Tears in Heaven, written by Eric Clapton and Will Jennings in 1991 after Clapton's four-year-old son fell to his death from a 53rd floor window in Manhattan. Clapton grieved in solitude for a while, then began writing a musical score for the film Rush in which this song was included. The song is a powerful and emotional testimony to a religious belief regarding the concept of Heaven.
It is regrettable, but there seems to be a timeless debate between science and religion. An endless source of contemplation, conflict, and some Cuckoo birdiness.
The pursuit of knowledge through empirical investigation is laudable and has yielded remarkable discoveries and technological advancements that have transformed the way we perceive and interact with the world. Our perceptions change with new information. Yay! At least, some humans are willing to accept new ideas, enjoy the process of contemplation, and are open to changing their mind.
The earliest roots of science can be traced back to Egypt and Mesopotamia between 3000 and 1200 BCE. (Looks like Potamia was a mess.) The Babylonians get credit for recognizing geometric principles which would later confound high school students. Let's note, they were “Baby"lonians. Imagine what they might have discovered if they were “Allgrownup”lonians.
Other ancient humans interpreted the stars they could see at night. And by ancient, I mean old. This makes astronomy one of the oldest sciences.
There is some evidence of religious behavior from the Middle Palaeolithic era (300-500 thousand years ago) and possibly earlier. No one is really sure. The earliest evidence of religious action is based on the ritual treatment of the dead.
The concepts of "science" and "religion" are relatively recent inventions: "religion," as we understand it today, emerged in the 17th century in the midst of colonization, and globalization, and as a consequence of the Protestant reformation. "Science" emerged in the 19th century in the midst of attempts to narrowly define those who studied nature.
Thankfully, in 1583, Galileo was paying attention. He built a new and improved telescope that enabled him to delight in star gazing and planetary observations. He also built a microscope suitable for examining bugs. Additionally, his empirical observations gave the world the knowledge that the period of a swinging lamp's sway is always the same, which is known as the law of isochronism of the pendulum or the law of harmonic motion.
However, when Galileo described Copernican heliocentrism as a better way to think of the solar system by replacing Earth with the Sun as the center, he was met with strong opposition from Pope Urban VIII and investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was Cuckoo, ridiculous, blasphemous, and heretical, since it contradicted the Ptolemaic horoscopic system which was considered a religious truth for centuries. So, how much did Galileo have to pay for his attention? He was convicted and condemned by the church for being "vehemently suspect of heresy” and sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life.
Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and many others credit Galileo with the birth of modern science.
The idea that science and religion are at war with one another is actually fairly recent too. It likely arose in the last part of the nineteenth century, after the publication of On the Origin of Species or, more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). This work of scientific literature by Charles Darwin is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology.
The effectiveness of science is evident in its ability to provide explanations for natural phenomena, develop life-saving medical treatments, and improve the quality of life for countless individuals. Lots of notable humans get credit for the development of the scientific method, including Aristotle, Issac Newton, the scapegoat Galileo, and Roger Bacon. Bacon gets credit for documenting the method with its emphasis on observation, experimentation, and peer review. He happened to be a Franciscan Friar too. The method has led to a deepening comprehension of the physical laws that govern our reality and has contributed to the evolution of human society.
On the other hand, (right or left?) religion, with its series of beliefs, traditions, and so-called moral frameworks, offers a different form of effectiveness that amazingly still resonates with a significant portion of humanity. The power of religious faith to provide solace, so-called ethical guidelines, and a sense of purpose for some humans is evident in the diverse religious traditions that have shaped cultures and civilizations over millennia. The effectiveness of religion can be seen in the comfort, community, and fellowship it provides to individuals.
However, I agree with Ricky Gervais when he said, take all the religious texts away for a thousand years and religious texts would not come back in the same form as originally published. But if you take all the science texts away for a thousand years, the science texts will come back as they are today because science is tested and proven.
In examining the effectiveness of science versus religion, it is important to recognize that both domains offer distinct ways of understanding and engaging with the world. While science provides empirical explanations and technological progress, religion offers spiritual fulfillment for many, and a sense of belonging to a larger cosmic narrative.
Science has harnessed the power of electricity, developed life-saving vaccines, and demonstrated its efficacy in shaping the trajectory of human civilization and improving the welfare of individuals, including the religiously inclined.
Conversely, the rituals, traditions, and communal practices associated with religious faith contribute to a sense of cohesion within some societies, and the preservation of a perception of cultural heritage, which may serve as a source of resilience and meaning in the face of existential questions.
However, religious texts include nothing that is based on actual evidence, but lots based on conjecture and illogical circular thoughts passed down through the ages, originating with people who did not know where the Sun went at night and listened to a talking snake. Some examples: The Bible is the word of God. If that's true (which it is not) then God needs a good editor. The Bible instructs its reader as follows: 1 Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” And, Jeremiah 19:9 “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them.” And, 1 Peter 2:18-20 “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.” The Bible teaches how one should treat your slaves! And, Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination.”
How about a few verses from the Quran? Chapter and verse 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” 3:28 “Muslims must not take infidels as friends” 3:85 “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable” 5:33 "The penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth (to cause) corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land". 8:12 “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than Quran” 9:5 “But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way.” 9:123 “Make war on infidels living in your neighborhood.”
How and why do humans still believe this dangerous, inhumane, cruel, hateful, and intolerant stuff as something considered to be guidance for a moral ethical life? While absolute nonviolence is not a requirement of many other religions, some religions so sharply restrict the use of violence, that nonviolence often becomes the only way to fulfill a life of truth, justice, and peace.
The blinding ideology behind many religions can be traced to the source of many wars. The deadly war weaponry however, is science.
Throughout history, the dynamic interplay between science and religion has given rise to moments of conflict and collaboration, inspiring introspection and debate on the nature of truth, meaning, and the human condition. The effectiveness of both domains lies not in their mutual exclusivity, but in their capacity to offer diverse perspectives and avenues for exploring the depths of existence.
Religion does not have to be truthful to be effective. Religious leaders may spew their pulpit pabulum without fear or care if their words are put to test via the scientific method. A religious belief system based on borrowed imaginations will stifle the ability to grow introspectively, collectively, and authentically. Science does not have the luxury of being static. Science is constantly correcting itself through hypothesis, tests, peer review, and reasonable conclusions.
Let's remember, the Pope is supposedly infallible regarding matters of faith and moral direction. The notion of Papal infallibility was established by the First Vatican Council in 1870. Personally, give me science and reason over religious dogma and fanaticism any day.
::::::
