Monday, February 9, 2009 at 6:29PM | in Religion Musings on unreasonable religion
Comment bits from a discussion below about science and religion got buried under new postings, but I thought they were worth bringing into a fresh post (even if it's a little disjointed):
Religion is all about interpretation, whereas science is all about description. In the absence of verifiable description of the world, in the past we have interpreted into the void. Reigning back interpretation doesn't mean religion is wrong, it just means that imperfect humans drew the wrong conclusions. They took it too far. Ultimately, as scientific description impinges on religious interpretation we need to accept the merits of science and re-evaluate our religious beliefs.
I think this is what 'Abdu'l-Baha is saying in the following:
Religion is all about interpretation, whereas science is all about description. In the absence of verifiable description of the world, in the past we have interpreted into the void. Reigning back interpretation doesn't mean religion is wrong, it just means that imperfect humans drew the wrong conclusions. They took it too far. Ultimately, as scientific description impinges on religious interpretation we need to accept the merits of science and re-evaluate our religious beliefs.
I think this is what 'Abdu'l-Baha is saying in the following:
Among other principles of Baha'u'llah's teachings was the harmony of science and religion. Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality. If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination. Innumerable doctrines and beliefs of this character have arisen in the past ages. Consider the superstitions and mythology of the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians; all were contrary to religion and science. It is now evident that the beliefs of these nations were superstitions, but in those times they held to them most tenaciously. For example, one of the many Egyptian idols was to those people an authenticated miracle, whereas in reality it was a piece of stone. As science could not sanction the miraculous origin and nature of a piece of rock, the belief in it must have been superstition. It is now evident that it was superstition. Therefore, we must cast aside such beliefs and investigate reality. That which is found to be real and conformable to reason must be accepted, and whatever science and reason cannot support must be rejected as imitation and not reality. Then differences of belief will disappear. All will become as one family, one people, and the same susceptibility to the divine bounty and education will be witnessed among mankind."
Monday, February 9, 2009 at 6:29PM | in Religion 
Reader Comments (4)
I find what Wright says absolutely fascinating. Thank you so much for the link.
just thinking about this some more ... you say "biological evolution should be taught alongside cultural evolution - looking for unifying principles that indicate a direction to history.". Darwin's principle of biological evolution is natural selection - survival of the fittest. In a social/cultural human sense that has sometimes meant that the strong/aggressive kill off the weak; or has led to population explosions and subsequent mass starvation/death by conflict. Surely human social evolution, if it does have historical direction (I agree with you), is towards favoring those societies that nurture the whole society and lead to survival of the whole group. Darwin directly applied to individual humans has led to the evil of eugenics; but when we look at the higher order of human qualities needed for us to survive and thrive as a species here on earth, surely those are the spiritual qualities that don't necessarily lend themselves to the individual natural selection principle. Has someone defined the evolutionary principle of social evolution, as Darwin defined natural selection as the principle of natural selection for biological evolution???
What Wright argues is that the unifying principle of evolution is that forms that can produce higher levels of complexity tend to survive. And complexity is created by what he calls 'non-zero sum exchange' -- basically, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.
At the simplest level, those societies that are best able to achieve and sustain unity at complex levels are more likely to survive.
Yes, thanks for clarifying .. He also defines "cultural evolution—the selective transmission of nongenetic information from animal to animal." Interesting - non-genetic information is transmitted from society elders to youngers, and those youngers who 'get it' are more likely to survive (and reproduce I suppose). Puts education in a whole new light!