Published April 22, 2012
In Non-Fiction
Reality can be divided into two main realms: the objective, shared reality where natural laws and common truths must be observed, and the subjective, private reality where natural laws and common truths do not necessarily apply. The two realms of reality are inextricably linked, both influencing each other, their interaction necessary for the enrichment of both realms.
Due to its nature, the objective realm of reality can be objectively observed, outcomes predicted and carefully pursued. As such, science rules the realm of objective reality, inasmuch as science can rule anything. Science is, by its nature, passive, being a method of exploring the objective world as well as the body of observations gathered from following said method.
Science is one of the means we use to make sense of the universe we inhabit; whether or not we employ science, the universe and its elements would remain extant. In other words, while science can be used to observe a natural force like gravity, codify it as a natural law, and attempt to understand its cause(s) and effects, gravity would still exist without science having done such; in order to be observed by science, the phenomenon must have first been extant outside the framework of science.
Similarly, religion and philosophy rule the realm of subjective reality, insofar as religion or philosophy rule anything. Much as science observes, codifies, and allows for understanding of natural laws, religion and philosophy do the same for the subjective realm of reality. However, due to its inherently personal and subjective nature, there is no one standard religion or philosophy, in stark contrast to science’s singular standardized method.
Instead, there infinitely many different religions and philosophies ruling the infinitely subjective realm of each individual. Within this subjective realm of reality, the only laws and truths extant are those which the individual chooses to believe in, which in turn shape their religious/philosophical view, which in turn shades their perception of the objective realm of reality.
As I mentioned earlier, both realms of reality are inextricably linked; it is not possible to ignore objective reality as the objective realm fosters the conditions for physical life, but neither is it possible to ignore subjective reality as the subjective realm determines how we perceive our lives. Similarly, the objective reality we share would be a rather dull place without the inspiration and possibilities uncovered within the realms of subjective reality.
Both realms enrich each other, and while the objective realm is fully capable of existing without interaction with the subjective, a lot of possibilities would forever remain lost and unexplored; by the same token, though science can quite happily exist completely independent of religion and philosophy, oftentimes in history, it has been religious and/or philosophical curiosity which has fueled scientific discovery and observation.
Science and religion/philosophy are complements to one another rather than being intrinsic opposites, and ideally they would work in tandem explore the entirety of reality in all its realms. However, issues arise when people attempt to impose their own subjective visions of reality upon everyone else’s reality, both objective and subjective, by using science and/or religion/philosophy.
While one is capable of altering the objective realm of reality and does so with every moment of their physical existence, the only subjective reality one may alter is their own. Attempting to alter, especially forcibly, others’ subjective realities never ends well, especially when one uses the tools of science and/or religion/philosophy as weapons. Doing so ultimately results in a conflict between the objective and subjective realms of reality.
Science and religion/philosophy are powerful tools which may be used to explore and understand reality in all its realms; to use them as weapons towards the destruction of other people’s perceptions of reality is to abuse these valuable tools, doing them a great disservice by propagating the belief that they are inherently incompatible.
Points:
Time spent:
IP address:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
141,286 Literary Works • 674,333 Reviews
This is very, very good. It's always appreciated when a writer can do two valuable things at once like you do here: you have ideas that are compelling and worth expressing AND have the skill to tackle them.
I found some interesting implications of your position that I thought would be helpful to include in my review. You say that science and religion are separate entities, which I agree with, but it made me realize that science therefore cannot be a religion. Also, since they are complements of one another, paying attention to one while dismissing the other is destructive. A scientist must recognize that as humans, it is hard to observe objectively. We are constantly employing memories and preconceptions when we are gathering data. Likewise, someone who follows a religion should not see that as a reason to dismiss science. I think the piece is great as it is, but if you wanted some additional length those ideas might work.
As I said, the essay is great on its own, so don't feel any pressure to change anything. Keep up the great work!
Oh wow. I was not expecting to get a review on this again. It's so old, but glad you appreciated it.
As for the points you recommended expanding on, the first point of science not being a religion kind of goes without saying as science has never been a religion or adhered to as one. It is fundamentally descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and so it has no moral or ethical tenets to live by.
That one cannot be the other was a conclusion I wanted the readers to understand for themselves as even mentioning that science is not a religion draws more attention (and gives indirect legitimacy through the fact that is was considered important enough to address) to the ridiculous idea that science is a religion in any fashion.
Science and the scientific method already work to account for the subjectivity of human perception, and so it did not get mentioned, and considering the nature of the article, I think I also tackled the "ignoring one on the basis of the other is bad" angle without needing to go into specifics as the article is a reaction to the damage such a view has been causing. I think an article covering the damage ignoring one in favor of the other inflicts would be interesting, but such is outside the scope of this article whose main point was to show that science, philosophy, and religion are not inherently incompatible.
Thanks for the feedback, though, and if you'd like to discuss this topic further, you can hit me up via PMs.
I completely agree.
The distinction made between science and religion / philosophy is a rather recent one. Up until the 20th century, most scientists referred to themselves as natural philosophers. And in fact, the very guy who came up with the scientific method (Aristotle) is himself remembered as a philosopher.
I'm not sure why the shift took place from natural philosopher to scientist, but it is starting to shift back. I think for most of the 20th century, every theory was provable in some way or another. But that's not really the case anymore. Instead, a lot of what is being developed is based on probabilities. When you start discussing probabilities and uncertainties, philosophy naturally plays a role.
A very well written essay. However, as a point of discussion I would like to say that the scientific method should involve no religious interference. For example, I am a Geology Student studying radiocarbon dating and it would be completely inappropriate for a young earth creationist to alter data collected in the field to justify their pre developed 'scientific' beliefs.
Religion and Science use different reasoning which is what you said. While I agree that neither should actively protrude into the others territory without reason, it worries me that science and the empirical truth is being altered by the agenda of the Christian Church, particularly in the USA where climate science is being contested on 'scientific grounds' by Christians who have some sort of agenda.
Please discuss this with me.
Regards, Nomad
This is REALLY good Kyllorac!!!
I am a believer that science and religion are completely compatable, but I've never been able to express my view nearly as well as you have!
I really liked this!!!
~Shadow