If religion cannot be based on science and theology, on what then?

Question

Thank you to all of you. Have a nice day!

Answer 1

Cheers Third P!

It will never be possible to build a perfect foundation for religion in the processes of the brain and the modes that must operate in cerebral intelligence. The real basis of religion cannot be constructed by the cerebral faculty adequately. It cannot be reduced to any attempt by cerebral constructions to represent its source, its development, its vicissitudes, nor its eternal dwelling place. And yet we need the cerebral organ as a testament. We need it to shape our experience. And we need it to store memory of what has been shaped. Therefore we must pay close attention to how we represent 'religious fact'.

The cerebral process of analysis and construction of ultimate models of 'REALITY' cannot adequately embrace the source of religious experience. This has generated a gap in human knowledge that in fact runs parallel to the gap in knowledge that currently divides physicists into two camps. The behavior of quantum mechanical effects does not fit in with the behavior of classical or Newtonian effects. They do not cohere theoretically, mathematically and interpretively. Rather they reach a breach that cannot be described mathematically and in the case of successful mathematical formulas such as the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg, we find that we cannot agree precisely with an interpretation as to what we think is going on in that gap between probabilistic physics and Newtonian mechanical physics.

Great religious revelations, religious experiences, great religious dreams and/or visions that modern psychology describes as "numinous", are CHARACTERIZED by the recurrent and traditional fact that they are always indescribable. By studying appropriate areas in what perhaps should be called 'numinous psychology' , I believe strongly that we can bring science, psychology, philosophical practice and various forms of universal religious practice closer and closer together. But this is very hard work. We find the material sciences to be easier because we can arrive at a common consensus more readily. I have been studying some of these numinous experiences since 1980 and I am very, very happy with what I have found. But the labor of trying to unify the findings of microphysical processes, with the archetypes of Jung and what those courageous Gnostic Gospels call the "types and images" by which "TRUTH" must necessarily cloak itself with in order to appear to any receiving conscious being, is so arduous and ultimately stamped with just enough paradoxes and indigenous koans that have always been the hallmark of genuine religious experiences, that it is not likely that this 'new knowledge', or evolving knowledge will become mainstream for a very long time.

Even those men who have worked overtime to demonstrate the involvement of quantum mechanics in the way that consciousness arises in brain matter (such as cytoskeletal microtubules at the nanometric and mesoscopic scale) are treated as mavericks. How much more so, then, would a pioneer in the realm of 'religious empiricism' be treated...he would be an outcast because the institutions which decide upon the Dogma of any given religion make the final absolute choice as to what the nature of the religion is. And some of these choices as we all know are quite arbitrary. They are neither rational, nor empirical nor even direct revelations. They are more political than anything else. And they have the effect of dividing this Dogma from that Dogma ad infinitum.

The true foundation of genuine religious experience ( which can be profoundly different from Religious Dogma) will in the end remain mysterious even for the rare individual who has been subject to a life-altering religious or mystical experience. Historically these testaments by very specifc individuals are by no means accepted immediately by the local theological authorities and even less so by the local secular authorities which can include one's own immediate family. Everybody knows this, but we forget it all too easily and instead find it simpler to accept reductionist images put forward by the various Dogmas that undermines a dynamic and true foundation for religous truths and keeps it rooted in dogma at best and fairytales at worst.

This blind acceptance alienates the true scientifc spirit and the true religious spirit alike, because both scientific and religious/theological knowledge - when authentic - share a deep common concern. Both want truth. Science wants scientific fact that is true even when still at the level of mathematics. Genuine theologians want true religious fact, even when it is still at the level of an individual testament that cannot be proven by physical means and even if it cannot be accounted for or understood by the rational mind especially in the case of prophecy or mystical experiences of huge magnitude. The foundation of true science that embraces both beginning and end of Time-Energy is really indistinguishable from the foundation of true religion or a genuine theology that attempts to embrace the beginning and the end of the human essence. Where they differ is in specific modes of comprehension, proof and method.

When people suggest that faith is the only true foundation, in a sense they are not wrong. But there are grades of faith. Faith need not be lazy superstition. Sometimes faith is simply a profound all-embracing acceptance of a WHOLE that the entire evolution of human knowledge will never be able to encompass or even represent. Faith can be extraordinarily vital. It can fill you up. It can be inimitably harmonious. It can be perfectly coherent with a Law (or Laws) that are beyond human analysis. It can inspire you to exceed your own limitations in a way that you never imagined. And this can occur in any field. One can be religious without even thnking about it. A scientist can be brought to the point of a real breakthrough in math or theory because he allowed faith - at the last moment of the process - to shape his mental and emotional modes.

But I think the answer to your question is that the other realms of human activity will always be applied to any attempt to place a great religous way or path on a natural and great footing such as we once saw in some of the Temple societies of the past (Egypt, Hopi, Tibetan, Chinese, Hindu, etc.). A great religion should not fear scientifc knoweldge. We should all fear some of the consequences and dangers of scientific know-how, but that is a problem of ethics that touches upon the confines of science, religion and philosophy equally. In many circumstances religious zeal is just as dangerous as scientific zeal.

The fact that we have failed to establish the foundation of religion on an adequate basis requires that we improve our own individual tolerance toward all human limitations - especially the operations of the mind that philosophy can help hone and improve as well as our emotional fires that lack patience for the Dogmas of others.

For all these reasons I regard your question as a great one. I thank you very much for asking it. Just as it is very difficult to identify a complete foundation for religion - something based upon 'cosmic equilibrium' or cosmic 'justice' that can be applied universally - so it is equally difficult to even use words to address your stupendous question. Religion has roots in a realm that seems to be beyond words and at times even produces words as if they were the first germs of wisdom. But we cannot see the forces at work, the mysterious 'parents' hiding behind the myriad veils who have given birth to these subtle verbal children that stimulate our minds and move our vocal cords.

Religion likes whole-ness. It is founded in what is whole. But wholeness loves infinity and it is difficult to close 'equations of understanding' when the values blow up to infinity. Yet it is exactly those infinite values by which religion draws its breath.

Thanks. Have a nice day yourself.

Answer 2

I was raised Catholic, and having actually read the bible unlike many Christians I find that I do not agree with it's teaching regardless of the fact that I have never really believed in a diving being. I have studied psychology and other sciences and I have never not found reasoning behind the seemingly unexplainable. I have also studied ancient cultures and understand that God(s) are a subject of myths that early civilizations made up to explain things they did not understand. With the great stride in science within the last century we have learned that a lot of what we once believed were God's doing can be explained via science. i respect the some people still need to believe in divine beings to make it through their lives because they can not grasp certain situations. The human mind is amazingly complex, but human cognition can still trip us up and if someone else is causing strange things to happen then people feel better believing they had no control. Because in the end it's all about control over our lives, and feeling safe.

Answer 3

There is no official, or extra official, restriction on basing religious belief in science or theology(theology is religious study! Come on!). As a matter of fact all religion is based in some level of combined understanding of both theology and science. Science normally being the least part of it!
Faith is based on assumption that is guided by some form of observation and influenced by emotional need to fill in gaps of knowledge. Such observations might be peer pressure, nature interpretation, historical interpretation, etc. Regardless there is rational thought processing behind a large part of religion. It is the gap feeling leap of faith that bother people who like to see all things so scientifically (I'm one of them). Yet, we must understand that actually most of it is based in reasoning over some faith based jump-start.
Don't forget some modern religious sects that base their ideas on Science and fill in -what they feel is not valid- with faith.

Note: Take it easy on your own assumption of limitation! If you feel you cannot base religion in such things that just means you don't believe in religion as a system. However, you must not forget that the knowledge gaps must be filled. Your mental comfort requires it! You will do it consciously or subconsciously at some point! Now, if you can defend such gap fillers is something completely different!

Answer 4

Religion is an ever changing human historical phenomenal fact, as is science, and the science for religion, theology. The fact of our imperfect human history does not make a falsehood of religion, merely an uncertainty, or I should say, a well spring for uncertainty. Paradoxically, it is that uncertainty which draws and makes a necessity of religion. All language and the notions therein start in a curious questioning human. In language notions for proper logical conduct, then science, the knowledge for corrections.

The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.

Answer 5

On mysticism just like the ancient religions were before Christianity told peoples throughout the world they were pagans. All religion is based on superstition because there is no proof either physical or written that will answer the ultimate question....
Unlike science theory which can proved by experiment, or dendrochronology as in detecting how old wood is, or the earths structure which can be determined by the differing layer formations in 1000's of years.

Answer 6

Well, i saw many of them saying it's faith or belief!:)

Every religion is true when understood metaphorically.

Religions were created to lead people to explore and see the realms beyond what can be seen by the naked eye. It’s not based on blind faith or believes. Practicing any kind of religion needed an actively seeking and analytical mind. It’s a science of life actually.

religion is really a category of second womb.
Religion is designed to bring this extremely complicated thing, which is a human being, to maturity, which means to be self motivating, self acting!:)

Answer 7

When our common sense accepts something after a rational thinking, the accepted fact we call as science. That is because we know what works behind that happening. When our common sense accepts something without a rational reasoning, the accepted fact seems to be magic to us. This is because we cannot analyse the reason behind it. A strong belief in magic leads to the formation of a religion. Religion is based on nothing but our own acceptance of a certain fact -assuming that there is something supernatural which comes to your aid and makes those miracles happen in your life.

Answer 8

Fear.

Religion has a long and colourful history of brutality against the citizenry of any country. The penalties for being a heretic have been up to and including death. Believe as I believe or die, is pretty much what religion has meant throughout human history. Fear is a powerful motivator. Even to disagree with religion or to choose another than one's family has often lead to conflict and even violence.

Shaping the mind of a child is always instrumental in propaganda. Hitler saw the benefits and used the same strategies. The same can be found in North Korea.

Social conditioning is an amazing thing.

Answer 9

Who says they can't?

All religion is based on something, and most are based on science or theology.

You asked a nebulous religious question, but I am wondering if you are really searching for a comfortable place to feel at home in your faith. I hope that you find it. I found mine in Christ Jesus.

Answer 10

To expand on the other answers...

Religions use science and/or theology to support their beliefs, however I think it's the aspect of faith that makes them religions.

Answer 11

Hi, here's a quote that may help:

"What we believe to be our only faith is actually our only ignorance. This is the only true evil."

I thought this fit in with the answers that say "faith." Good luck!