Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00013)

The following essay was copied from a letter written to the Journal of 
Consciousness Studies online forum. It had no signature but came from 
fc@eleusis.com, forwarded through jcs-online@yahoogroups.com. 

I thought it might be useful to share with students of theosophy, since it 
appears to be in conformance with many of the ideas about religion and 
science discussed by HPB and WQJ.

Incidentally, the "interdisciplinary" Journal whose subtitle is 
"controversies in science & the humanities," although peer reviewed, is quite 
willing to give an equal platform in their online forum to both religious 
(theosophical) as well as scientific thought. It may be of interest to 
advanced students that of late there have been several online scientific and 
philosophical dialogues referring to Buddhist and Hindu philosophies related 
to consciousness. In addition, although carefully monitored, for the past 7 
years they have accepted and archived many of my letters using arguments 
culled from theosophical teachings, as well as related to the ABC theory 
which contradicts the majority academic scientific view that consciousness is 
an epiphenomena or quantum effect of the brain's neurology. FYI, the latest 
edition of the quarterly Journal (Volume 7, No. 11/12 - 2000) entitled, 
"Cognitive Models and Spiritual Maps," had the subtitle, "interdisciplinary 
Explorations of Religious Experience." 

LHM

==========================

As the ongoing battle between creationism and evolutionary theory continues 
to be waged, especially within the confines of school boards across the US, 
we could easily believe that there is an inherent conflict between a belief 
in God and a belief in science. Yet a contest between these two disciplines 
has not always existed, nor is there really a conflict today. Rather the 
perceived contest is the product of a distorted view of religion that we have 
created in the Western world.

In order to put this false tempest in perspective, we need only remind 
ourselves that some of our most imminent scientists have expressed a belief 
in a divine force. They do not see themselves as opposed to religion, rather 
they see their work, in Stephen Hawking's phrase, as an attempt to "peer 
inside the mind of God." But that is not the mainstream view of science that 
is held by many of the members of our society. In fact, our society tends to 
see the scientist as rigorously logical and the religious as simple-minded. 
While it is certainly arguable that many of those who profess fundamental 
beliefs most loudly are less well-educated (and are also irritatingly 
impenetrable to logic), many with strong beliefs are both educated and 
intelligent. 

They simply draw an artificial line around the "truths" of their religion and 
refuse to allow science to cross them.

The essential problem that creates this appearance of conflict is a confusion 
of the quite different realms in which religion and science should operate. 
Science deals with the realm of physical reality–with gravity, electricity, 
quantum mechanics, chemistry, et al. Religion deals with what might be termed 
"spiritual reality," that is, those things that have to do with the human 
spirit and psyche, with the meaning of life itself, with individual and 
social values, and with myth. How these realms became confused is a story 
grounded hundreds of years ago in the early history of Christianity in the 
West. But the story needs to begin a bit earlier than that in order to 
provide perspective.

Science and the scientific method were invented by the ancient Greeks in the 
context of a society that was far more religious than our own. One has only 
to look at the number and prominence of the temples of Greece to see the 
position that religion held in their society. 

Where we might put a capitol building, they built a temple. Initiation into 
the mysteries at Eleusis was an important part of the life of the men who led 
Athens in its Golden Age. The Greeks did not find the pursuit of science to 
be at odds with religion, as they had no static dogma to block or to conflict 
with scientific inquiry. For them, the universe was the handiwork of the 
gods. To discover more about it was to know more of the gods. To the Greeks, 
as well as to many other ancient cultures, the differing sides of the mind, 
the logical and the spiritual, were complimentary. Each had its own sphere of 
operation, and each met different human needs.

Moving forward to Roman times, the definition of religion and its place in 
society are made even clearer. It is from Latin that the term "religion" 
springs. The Latin word religio is specifically related to the root "lig" (to 
bind). Religio means a "reverence for the gods." The term was also used to 
mean "the rites and ceremonies, as well as the entire system of religion and 
worship" (from Lewis and Short). It is also related to obligatio, or social 
and personal obligation. Religion was therefore something that tied the 
people of Rome together. 

Ancient Rome was a city and culture highly devoted to technological 
achievement. Roman innovations defined the basic concepts of engineering and 
architecture. The first textbook of engineering was written in ancient Rome. 
Yet it was also a highly religious culture, with the ceremonies and holidays 
of the gods assuming a position in society far beyond what religion does 
today. Each household had its gods and representations of them. There was no 
concept of the separation of church and state. The religion of Rome was 
linked to the politics of the city. 

Because of the manifold concept of their religion, they had little trouble 
identifying the gods of other, conquered cultures with their own gods. Much 
of the final shape of the Roman religion was given to it by their adoption of 
the traditions of the Greek pantheon that had preceded it.

This state of affairs changed drastically in the third and fourth centuries, 
culminating in the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of 
Rome. Belief in the old gods was waning in those years and fewer and fewer 
people were linked together by the old religion. Numerous cults, including 
the ones of Mithra and Christ, were being followed by Romans. These religions 
did not add to the old religion, rather they separated themselves from the 
older practices. Recognizing the social need for a religion to link the 
various facets of his society together, the emperor Constantine chose 
Christianity as the official religion of the Empire. With that one decision 
the entire religious substrate of the Western world was changed. 

Christianity was in flux at the time of Constantine's declaration. It was not 
a religion that had established it belief patterns. Competing views were held 
by peoples who were all nominally Christian. Councils were called (the most 
prominent of which was Nicea) to define what was and wasn't Christianity. 
Those who fell outside of these beliefs were heretics. 

They were converted or punished. While the sword of doctrinal purity was 
first used against Christians who differed in their belief patterns, it was 
later expanded, through the Office of the Inquisition, to oppose all 
non-Christian faiths. 

This establishment of dogma was a critical step in changing the nature of 
religion. Instead of bringing people together, it split them apart. Dogma was 
used to define those who were pure, i.e., those who espoused the officially 
sanctioned version of Christianity, and those who were not. Religion had lost 
the relaxed form that it had held for centuries, when myth was more important 
than dogma. (One has only to look at Celtic myth to see the rather freeform 
approach to religion of Indo-European polytheism.) In Greek and Roman 
religion, it was not unusual to select one god who was considered the divine 
patron of a household or family. So one religion with many gods could be 
viewed in many ways. 

Dogma did have its political reasons in Christianity, but it is important to 
note that a dogmatic definition of religion is a normal feature of a certain 
type of monotheistic faith, the type that espouse a principle of evil as well 
as one of good. Christianity and Islam are representative of this type. It is 
unfortunate that monotheism tends to this type of faith. The single god of 
monotheism usually assumes the role of the all powerful and all knowing. If 
he is so powerful and knowing, then how can one explain the presence of evil? 
The simplest answer is to create a balancing Lord of Darkness, as was done by 
the earliest of these religions, Zoroastrianism. This God-Devil dichotomy 
remains a significant feature in conservative Christianity. From this 
dichotomy comes a necessity to separate the godly from the not godly, 
therefore tests of faith and articles of faith (dogma) are created. The 
dogmatic principles that were used to test faith did, on some occasions, 
bleed over into the physical sciences. Mary was no longer "symbolically" or 
"mythically" a virgin. She was actually a virgin. 

Western Christianity did not stop with the creation of spiritual dogma that 
only occasionally spread into the sciences. From its self conception as being 
the "possessor of truth" it expanded the concept of its own sphere of 
knowledge. In doing so, it reached into areas that did not concern the human 
spirit, but concerned physical reality. For centuries this created little 
problem, as the church was the possessor of much of the scientific research 
that had been done by the Greeks and Romans. But, as the sciences were again 
reborn in the West, the church found itself in conflict with Galileo and 
Copernicus, whose experiments and observations challenged the pronouncements 
of the church. The church had placed the earth at the center of the Universe, 
as man was the beloved of God. Unfortunately, the universe had not been 
informed of this decision and had relegated us to circling a middling sun 
that was placed in a rather rural portion of the galaxy. So the battle line 
between Western Christianity and the sciences was drawn many centuries ago. 
Evolution versus creationism is only the current battle. The other battles, 
such as the one the church fought to maintain the belief that the sun circled 
the earth, were lost long ago.

The point is that conflict between science and traditional Christianity only 
appears to be a conflict between religion and science. The problem is that 
Christianity often does not function as a religion. The objective of creating 
a spiritual and mythic experience is secondary to its desire to enforce 
adherence to dogma. Christianity has therefore replaced the mythic core of 
religion with a dogmatic one. Myth, those charming stories we are all told to 
take "figuratively" is no longer included in the teaching of religion. As 
conservative Christianity wastes its energy on battles with the 
ever-expanding knowledge of science, it pays less and less attention to the 
spiritual needs of its followers. Even the more mainstream components of 
Christianity have lost the ability to meet the needs of its devotees as it 
has seen its scope reduced by science. 

As its dogma has been undermined, it has not been able to adapt and instead 
has retreated in to vagueness and homilies. Its irrelevance has been 
succinctly pointed out by The Right Reverend John Shelby Spong, the retired 
Bishop of Newark (NJ, US).

Western society is on short rations when it comes to meeting our spiritual 
needs, primarily because we have lost sight of a correct perception of 
religion. The counterfeit currency of a dogmatic religion, concerned with 
promoting its dogma over fact, has debased the entire currency of religion. 
As a result, the critical psychological needs that religion answers–the sense 
of place, the search for meaning, and a binding moral center–are nolonger 
met. 

As a child, I was fortunately exposed to myth as well as to Christianity. 
Today when I see someone who needs help and try to remember the inherent 
nobility and worth of every human life, it is not my Christian upbringing 
that sustains me. Rather it is an old tale about Zeus and Hermes, disguised 
as poor peasants walking along a road. Rich house after rich house turned 
them away as they asked for food and shelter. But one old couple, with barely 
enough food to sustain themselves, took pity on the poor travelers and gave 
them what they could. Of course, the old couple's rewards were immense. But 
that childhood lesson, that I should not judge the merit of a person from 
what you see of him, has remained with me. And Prometheus, Aphrodite, 
Achilles, and Ulysses are in my memory as well. I learned loyalty from 
Ulysses' dog, devotion from his wife, and nobility of sacrifice from 
Prometheus. I learned that even the most invulnerable had best not be too 
arrogant, since we all have an "Achilles' heel." 

The purpose of religion is to elevate the nobility of spirit within mankind 
and to teach us that there is justice in the universe. This purpose is met by 
myth, nåot by dogma. Or, in Joseph Campbell's words, myth does not provide 
the meaning of life, it provides the "experience of being alive." Arguing 
creationism against evolution has nothing to do with the validity or power of 
religion. As a believer, I am not concerned with denying evolution's truth. 

The gods had the right to shape the universe in whatever time and in whatever 
manner they chose.