Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00016)

Leon,

As I was reading your posting, which introduced the one you brought over from the
other forum, both of which are below mine, this 2-part article came to mind as
being useful additional material on the subject for the reader to have access to:

Compromise in Science and Religion (Part 1 of 2):
http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/compromiseone.html

Compromise in Science and Religion (Part 2 of 2):
http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/compromisetwo.html

John DeSantis
(Compiler)

You may find a great deal of the Truth that you are searching for here:
http://www.wisdomworld.org/index.html

-------

leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:

> 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 no longer
> 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.