Rohit, Kudos on a very thoughtful and thought-provoking piece! It was good we got a chance to explore these ideas further via in-person debate subsequently.
One topic of interest is the difference of degree in belief. Specifically, some religious adherents believe their god intervenes in day-to-day life when called upon via prayer or visiting a house of worship. Many others believe there could very well be some sort of higher power who is part of all of us, and of which we are part, and yet cannot and does not intercede in ordinary life.
As such this is very difficult to prove or disprove, but is certainly a topic of much philosophizing over the ages. For example the "dvaita" (dualistic) vs "advaita" (monistic) theories of Hinduism espoused respectively by the sages Ramanujacharya and Adi Sankaracharya.
Minor quibbles:
1. Technically Darwin's seminal contribution could be better labelled the "Theory of Natural Selection" rather than the "Theory of Evolution". The objective reality is that evolution happens every day - so it is a fact, not a theory. The mechanism by which it happens is what is subject to hypotheses, theories and laws.
2. What you describe as atheism is probably better labelled as agnosticism. As far as I know, atheism is in fact an affirmative belief that a divine being does not exist, whereas agnosticism is the stance that current evidence for a deity being extant is insufficient but does not preclude the possibility
Hey Rohit, thanks for sharing. This is a really great write-up, and I think you expressed your ideas really well.
I grew up outside of the Church, and didn’t really have any focused spiritual leadership growing up. I identified myself as an atheist.
Reading this write-up, I was struck by how familiar your ideas are to me, and how often I followed the exact line of reasoning that you are following.
My life experiences were organized in such a way that at some point in my life, I was led by God to seek after Him.
I read the Bible for the first time once in college (c.2018), and it spoke to me in a way which humbled me greatly and represented an unexplainable experience. Then, in 2020, after I had graduated, I began to read through it daily with the help of an online plan and some other online resources. Once I encountered God, I was reborn of Him from above. My old person ceased to exist, and a new creation began.
In my utter joy at having been redeemed by Him, I yielded to His will and purposes. I celebrated His love for me and lived in thankfulness and obedience to Him.
When some trials came on account of my obedience to Him, I was challenged and sought to examine more deeply the evidence for the historical truth of what I had come to believe occurred.
Only once I was shown the truth, did I realize that there is an incredible amount of evidence that supports the proposition that Jesus really rose from the dead, and that the Gospel narratives are a faithful historical and biographical representation of Jesus and the deeds of His earthly ministry.
This only increases my joy as I find deeper and deeper peace in knowing the love that God has for me, and for those He has redeemed.
So to your point about why people would lower the bar for evidence with regard to spiritual matters, I argue that for questions of understanding, simple reason cannot adequately perform the work necessary to bring one to a knowledge of the Truth (who is God). Therefore, while I share in your frustration with people taking the role of arbitrary arbiters over what constitutes “sufficient” evidence, I argue that only once one is given eyes to see, can one actually gather insight. It’s similar to how when scientific revolutions happen, suddenly research explodes because old data is able to be reinterpreted into the new paradigm.
I became a Christian in 2020 after God brought me to Himself. I argue that people will have all sorts of irrational views about faith and belief, until they are given the ability to see things as they truly are, with Jesus at the center of everything.
I pray that you would come to repentance and faith in Jesus, the Son of God. He’s waiting at the door, knocking!
I suppose it comes down to the specifics of what beliefs you can remove or modify from an existing religion and still continue to call it the same religion or call it a religion at all. Science and religion could potentially compliment each other, but as you mentioned science focuses on objective reality. Thus any claims about the nature of reality made by a religion would have to be placed under the same level of scrutiny as scientific claims in order for the two to "complement" each other. As soon as they contradict each other, likely in the realm of objective reality as that is where science focuses, it no longer is an option to simply complement each other. At that point clinging to belief in both science and religion appears to me to require some degree of self-delusion and willful overlooking of the blatant contradictions. Once you contradict how can you complement?
Of course, if religions didn't make claims about reality and simply dealt with the subjective experiences from moment to moment of it's followers, then the concept of atheism would likely never have arisen, religious reform would not be necessary, and most vocal opponents of religion would have no reason to voice concerns. This is because it would not impinge on the life, freedom and wellbeing of other individuals. Were Christianity simply a matter of doing charity, having a community with which to share subjective feelings of love and rapture, and a method of conveying traditional subjective life wisdom perhaps it could "complement science". But at that point why call it Christianity once it is so distinctly different from what the term has meant for the last 2000 years, and why even call it a religion and attach the societal baggage that goes along with the term.
......
On the other hand, as you mentioned and as far as I understand, Buddhism is a lot closer to a set of ideas that could actually complement science as far as it doesn't make as many outright claims about objective reality. The Three Marks of Existence, for example, are statements the buddha made that, as their name suggests, have to do with the nature of the SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE of all beings. I'll refrain from saying more as I am not well versed enough in the teachings and texts of buddhism.
I have still to understand why Buddhism is really considered a religion, and perhaps it is what you touched on in terms of "a way out of the matrix". But even if we look beyond Buddhism, there are many wisdom traditions that make few or no objective claims about reality and deal more with subjective experience. Take any of the ancient greek philosophers who have written on Ethics, Governance, Logic, Happiness etc. Or the Stoics. They all deal heavily with subjective experience, inner issues, and the relation to other beings. Yet there is no conflict between them and science that finds people divided on either side.
To put it simply: no case even needs to be made as to whether Plato and modern science could potentially "complement" each other in today's society.
The case only needs to be made with religion because it so clearly contradicts science unless one jumps through many hoops and makes many changes to the religion.
And on top of that, it is not simply the subjective harmless parts of a religion which any practitioner of a religion is referring to when they wish for science to simply accept religion as its complement.
..........
In general, I find the claim of opposition between science and questions of subjective experience to be an unfair one. The idea one must turn to religion for a valuing of subjective experience strikes me as unfair.
First, it suggests that there are aspects of one's experience which you must leave unaddressed in order to maintain consistency with science. I think this is clearly false as all of philosophy, and as you mentioned modern psychology (which nowadays seems to take on the subjects previously categorized as philosophy), deals specifically with inner experience and is not at all in contradiction with science and evidence based thinking.
Second, it makes it sound as though anyone who criticizes religion (on the basis of its contradictions with science) does not appropriately value subjectivity. Subjectivity is by far the most valuable thing we as a society could possibly care about and arguably the only thing to care about. The subjective experiences of conscious beings is what all our systems of morality and governance revolve around and from which all the richness of life springs forth in art, literature, music, love, etc.
In fact, it is generally from a valuing of subjective experience that evidence-based thinkers criticize many of the outlandish claims of religions.
When one claims they were saved by some god from a natural disaster, it is the evidence-based thinker who demands some reason as to why we should assume this god saved them but left a thousand other conscious beings to meet painful and untimely deaths. Is this not a valuing of the subjective experiences of the other thousand beings, while being a devaluing to write it off as merely gods inscrutable ways.
When one claims that "everything happens for a reason", it is the evidence-based thinker who denounces the inherent moral judgement that goes along with this unsubstantiated claim. To claim that all who develop cancer deserved to have this happen as it is for some unspecified reason is condemnable when viewed in terms of a valuing of all subjectivity.
Third, most subjective claims that people make nowadays no longer need to reside in the camp of religion or unfounded belief. For example, take the claim that a positive outlook on life is beneficial. Or phrased even more "subjectively": your experience makes your reality. In what sense do we need ascientific beliefs to agree that:
a) the brain filters the majority of it's sensory input and only brings to top-level conscious awareness a subset of all input and specifically what it deems most relevant/important
b) we can influence what our brain ultimately deems as relevant/important by reinforcement. Aka bringing to mind certain thoughts repeatedly forces them to take precedence as relevant/important
c) therefore, what we choose to think about moment to moment, will inevitable impact the reality of our top-level conscious subjective experience.
If you repeatedly tell yourself that the world is full of rude, selfish, ignorant, arrogant and dishonest people, don't be surprised when you find yourself noticing all the rude, selfish, ignorant, arrogant and dishonest qualities of the people you encounter.
.........
Perhaps I am trivializing the aspects of life which people find unaddressed once religion is not present, but I do ultimately think one can live a personally meaningful and positive life without religion and that too many otherwise good people find themselves shackled to harmful beliefs solely because of religion.
Rohit, Kudos on a very thoughtful and thought-provoking piece! It was good we got a chance to explore these ideas further via in-person debate subsequently.
One topic of interest is the difference of degree in belief. Specifically, some religious adherents believe their god intervenes in day-to-day life when called upon via prayer or visiting a house of worship. Many others believe there could very well be some sort of higher power who is part of all of us, and of which we are part, and yet cannot and does not intercede in ordinary life.
As such this is very difficult to prove or disprove, but is certainly a topic of much philosophizing over the ages. For example the "dvaita" (dualistic) vs "advaita" (monistic) theories of Hinduism espoused respectively by the sages Ramanujacharya and Adi Sankaracharya.
Minor quibbles:
1. Technically Darwin's seminal contribution could be better labelled the "Theory of Natural Selection" rather than the "Theory of Evolution". The objective reality is that evolution happens every day - so it is a fact, not a theory. The mechanism by which it happens is what is subject to hypotheses, theories and laws.
2. What you describe as atheism is probably better labelled as agnosticism. As far as I know, atheism is in fact an affirmative belief that a divine being does not exist, whereas agnosticism is the stance that current evidence for a deity being extant is insufficient but does not preclude the possibility
Hey Rohit, thanks for sharing. This is a really great write-up, and I think you expressed your ideas really well.
I grew up outside of the Church, and didn’t really have any focused spiritual leadership growing up. I identified myself as an atheist.
Reading this write-up, I was struck by how familiar your ideas are to me, and how often I followed the exact line of reasoning that you are following.
My life experiences were organized in such a way that at some point in my life, I was led by God to seek after Him.
I read the Bible for the first time once in college (c.2018), and it spoke to me in a way which humbled me greatly and represented an unexplainable experience. Then, in 2020, after I had graduated, I began to read through it daily with the help of an online plan and some other online resources. Once I encountered God, I was reborn of Him from above. My old person ceased to exist, and a new creation began.
In my utter joy at having been redeemed by Him, I yielded to His will and purposes. I celebrated His love for me and lived in thankfulness and obedience to Him.
When some trials came on account of my obedience to Him, I was challenged and sought to examine more deeply the evidence for the historical truth of what I had come to believe occurred.
Only once I was shown the truth, did I realize that there is an incredible amount of evidence that supports the proposition that Jesus really rose from the dead, and that the Gospel narratives are a faithful historical and biographical representation of Jesus and the deeds of His earthly ministry.
This only increases my joy as I find deeper and deeper peace in knowing the love that God has for me, and for those He has redeemed.
So to your point about why people would lower the bar for evidence with regard to spiritual matters, I argue that for questions of understanding, simple reason cannot adequately perform the work necessary to bring one to a knowledge of the Truth (who is God). Therefore, while I share in your frustration with people taking the role of arbitrary arbiters over what constitutes “sufficient” evidence, I argue that only once one is given eyes to see, can one actually gather insight. It’s similar to how when scientific revolutions happen, suddenly research explodes because old data is able to be reinterpreted into the new paradigm.
I became a Christian in 2020 after God brought me to Himself. I argue that people will have all sorts of irrational views about faith and belief, until they are given the ability to see things as they truly are, with Jesus at the center of everything.
I pray that you would come to repentance and faith in Jesus, the Son of God. He’s waiting at the door, knocking!
Thanks for the comment Ye Tang Che :)
I suppose it comes down to the specifics of what beliefs you can remove or modify from an existing religion and still continue to call it the same religion or call it a religion at all. Science and religion could potentially compliment each other, but as you mentioned science focuses on objective reality. Thus any claims about the nature of reality made by a religion would have to be placed under the same level of scrutiny as scientific claims in order for the two to "complement" each other. As soon as they contradict each other, likely in the realm of objective reality as that is where science focuses, it no longer is an option to simply complement each other. At that point clinging to belief in both science and religion appears to me to require some degree of self-delusion and willful overlooking of the blatant contradictions. Once you contradict how can you complement?
Of course, if religions didn't make claims about reality and simply dealt with the subjective experiences from moment to moment of it's followers, then the concept of atheism would likely never have arisen, religious reform would not be necessary, and most vocal opponents of religion would have no reason to voice concerns. This is because it would not impinge on the life, freedom and wellbeing of other individuals. Were Christianity simply a matter of doing charity, having a community with which to share subjective feelings of love and rapture, and a method of conveying traditional subjective life wisdom perhaps it could "complement science". But at that point why call it Christianity once it is so distinctly different from what the term has meant for the last 2000 years, and why even call it a religion and attach the societal baggage that goes along with the term.
......
On the other hand, as you mentioned and as far as I understand, Buddhism is a lot closer to a set of ideas that could actually complement science as far as it doesn't make as many outright claims about objective reality. The Three Marks of Existence, for example, are statements the buddha made that, as their name suggests, have to do with the nature of the SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE of all beings. I'll refrain from saying more as I am not well versed enough in the teachings and texts of buddhism.
I have still to understand why Buddhism is really considered a religion, and perhaps it is what you touched on in terms of "a way out of the matrix". But even if we look beyond Buddhism, there are many wisdom traditions that make few or no objective claims about reality and deal more with subjective experience. Take any of the ancient greek philosophers who have written on Ethics, Governance, Logic, Happiness etc. Or the Stoics. They all deal heavily with subjective experience, inner issues, and the relation to other beings. Yet there is no conflict between them and science that finds people divided on either side.
To put it simply: no case even needs to be made as to whether Plato and modern science could potentially "complement" each other in today's society.
The case only needs to be made with religion because it so clearly contradicts science unless one jumps through many hoops and makes many changes to the religion.
And on top of that, it is not simply the subjective harmless parts of a religion which any practitioner of a religion is referring to when they wish for science to simply accept religion as its complement.
..........
In general, I find the claim of opposition between science and questions of subjective experience to be an unfair one. The idea one must turn to religion for a valuing of subjective experience strikes me as unfair.
First, it suggests that there are aspects of one's experience which you must leave unaddressed in order to maintain consistency with science. I think this is clearly false as all of philosophy, and as you mentioned modern psychology (which nowadays seems to take on the subjects previously categorized as philosophy), deals specifically with inner experience and is not at all in contradiction with science and evidence based thinking.
Second, it makes it sound as though anyone who criticizes religion (on the basis of its contradictions with science) does not appropriately value subjectivity. Subjectivity is by far the most valuable thing we as a society could possibly care about and arguably the only thing to care about. The subjective experiences of conscious beings is what all our systems of morality and governance revolve around and from which all the richness of life springs forth in art, literature, music, love, etc.
In fact, it is generally from a valuing of subjective experience that evidence-based thinkers criticize many of the outlandish claims of religions.
When one claims they were saved by some god from a natural disaster, it is the evidence-based thinker who demands some reason as to why we should assume this god saved them but left a thousand other conscious beings to meet painful and untimely deaths. Is this not a valuing of the subjective experiences of the other thousand beings, while being a devaluing to write it off as merely gods inscrutable ways.
When one claims that "everything happens for a reason", it is the evidence-based thinker who denounces the inherent moral judgement that goes along with this unsubstantiated claim. To claim that all who develop cancer deserved to have this happen as it is for some unspecified reason is condemnable when viewed in terms of a valuing of all subjectivity.
Third, most subjective claims that people make nowadays no longer need to reside in the camp of religion or unfounded belief. For example, take the claim that a positive outlook on life is beneficial. Or phrased even more "subjectively": your experience makes your reality. In what sense do we need ascientific beliefs to agree that:
a) the brain filters the majority of it's sensory input and only brings to top-level conscious awareness a subset of all input and specifically what it deems most relevant/important
b) we can influence what our brain ultimately deems as relevant/important by reinforcement. Aka bringing to mind certain thoughts repeatedly forces them to take precedence as relevant/important
c) therefore, what we choose to think about moment to moment, will inevitable impact the reality of our top-level conscious subjective experience.
If you repeatedly tell yourself that the world is full of rude, selfish, ignorant, arrogant and dishonest people, don't be surprised when you find yourself noticing all the rude, selfish, ignorant, arrogant and dishonest qualities of the people you encounter.
.........
Perhaps I am trivializing the aspects of life which people find unaddressed once religion is not present, but I do ultimately think one can live a personally meaningful and positive life without religion and that too many otherwise good people find themselves shackled to harmful beliefs solely because of religion.