This is a wonderful discussion, and it is one well worth having! The nature of this topic will elicit almost as many individual responses, as there are people. One must approach the discussion delicately for the sake of discussion; if the purpose is to discover truth. We all know from our courses in logic and critical thinking that, truth needs no defense. Truth exists independent of what anyone thinks, wishes or claims it to be. Thought and discussion, that attempt to exclude emotion(bias) will make the human species more fit, and it will be necessary minimize bias if we are to overcome the challenges that confront us. Science would not emphasize the need to minimize bias if it were not so.
Any language has inefficiencies which hinder its users from precisely describing observations, repeated results or truth, and people often argue over terminology when the terms are, indeed, expressing the same concept. The following will attempt to express the relatedness of Science and Religion by starting with "Energy" and concluding with the collections of energy termed "humans". I hope that all who read it will consider it knowing that I realize it limitations as I write, but that I am joining the discussion for the very same fundamental reason that it is taking place. We must ask ourselves; "Do we really want to know?" It is very easy to take sides and blindly accept a claim. It requires energetic work in the form of kilojoules to put various amounts of thought and energy into examining different claims, but one can still arrive at a conclusion that is not the truth. No matter the belief system, we must ask ourselves if we really want to know the truth, no matter where the chips fall. Religion and Science are thought to be mutually exclusive by most discussing the issue, and both concepts claim to be a more a accurate representation of truth. They are different expressions of the same root cause. Most people will agree that different professions, disciplines, beliefs and life forms are related: physics, chemistry, biology, geology, psychology, sociology, economics, marketing, accounting, art etc... The general consensus is that they are related, but must do not or cannot consider the depths of the "universal" relationship of all energy forms. The concepts or mind strategies of Religion and Science are more related than most think. Conflict arises due to many variables or barriers that exist between systems and limit energy flow or "idea exchange". Language is a large barrier, and discussions of any topic are attempts to open energetic pathways, break down barriers, ultimately to arrive at a consensus(equilibrium). The purpose of this very discussion is so that the participants arrive at a more efficient "mind strategy" for viewing Science and Religion, whether or not they are aware of the energetic purpose. There are other variables are besides language; differential genetics, different informational stimuli, environmental stimuli, resource availability etc..., and these variables make "conflict" inevitable. A deeper understanding this topic is possible today because knowledge evolves, just like we evolve. It is almost certain that a deeper understanding will be possible for future generations. Any topic of discussion can integrate information from every subject that is known because energy is the base that gives rise to all expressions that exist or could exist. A deeper understanding of the "Ecology of Energy"(human behavior) will not be reached if the discussion does not incorporate all fields of knowledge. Keep in mind a word, sentence, paragraph, article, text, body language, sign language or any communication contains the amount of energy(in kilojoules) that it took to force air over the vocal chords, make hand signals, dance or write them. The amount of (kj) in any human communication does not equal the (kj) in the energy system, which it attempts to describe. The sides of the equation are not equal. Is it any wonder where so many sayings come from such as "words fall short", "words can't describe", "there's no explanation" etc? Literally, the energetics in language will fall short of precisely representing the other side. Communication will encounter electrical resistance(ohms), which produces energy loss in the form of heat. Discussions will get "heated". Tempers will "flare". Some will become "hot-heads". So, we must do what we can to lower resistance, to remain open, to remain objective and not waste our energetic efforts through "ohms" while discussing. This is the "information age", and we must look for the relationships between all that exists. Today, physics recognize energy systems and continues to discover the vastness of the system we call the universe. The total energy in existence and the systems that comprise the totality are currently, of course, inexplicably dynamic. The stability of energy systems is limited, and Newton's Laws provide valuable insight into the "conflict" that exists anywhere, in any form. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in form and transferred from system to system." The discussion of conflict between Religion and Science must take into account the energy system called "humans" and their purpose. From the "Big Bang" came the known universe, galaxies, solar systems, planets, rock, weather cycles, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. They are all energy systems. Newton and Darwin cause us to believe that these systems did not always exist in their current forms nor will they in the future, even if we it takes many billions of years. This means that there is only relative stability and energy is always being transformed and transferred from one system to system. An herbivore(system) eats a plant(system). The herbivore's system transforms and transfers the energy in calories(calorie = 4.184joules), nucleic acids etc.., to regions of its system such as muscles, myelin sheaths, fat reserves. Everything that happens or could ever happen involves energy transformation and transfer, guaranteed! Currently, we only know energy to exist in the biological system, on the outer edge of the "Milky Way", in this solar system. The lithosphere, pedosphere, hydroshphere, atmosphere and bioshpere are all energy systems that are transforming and transferring energy. The elements, mixtures, compounds etc... that comprise these systems have charges that predispose them to different behavior(reactions) when exposed to others based on respective molar ratios. Of course, the total number of possible reactions is astronomical. If we include stimuli from solar input, gravity and others not mentioned or known, the behavior of the human system form becomes dynamic to the extent "words cannot describe". Therefore, interactions will be exponentially dynamic; conflict will be that dynamic. Personal beliefs, morals, values, cultural differences, societies, economies and governments follow the same laws. Is it any wonder then, that we see the various expressions of energetic behavior that exists: conflict, agreement, peace, war, hate, love, crime, charity. It appears to be random because the order is unkown. All energy has an electric charge, whether we can currently measure that charge or not. We will only term it "neutral" or "random" until it can be observed, measured and known. These differences in charge, even if minute, predispose charges to "behave" differently and at different rates with others, but energy is always being transformed and transferred. All energy forms are "in the business" of transforming and transferring (processing) energy, which can make broader views seem random or chaotic. These are necessary concepts to understand, when examining the the seeming conflict of Science and Religion because a concept is a form of energy(electric charges) that exist within the electrical structure of neurons. So, the question may be: How is this related to Science and Religion: Dogmatic Conflict? Science and Religion are concepts(energy) that play a large role in the human system. As previously stated, concepts are energy in the form of electrical charge in the CPU(brain) of the human system. A concept that makes a given genetic code, in a given environment more efficient, is by definition fitness. Belief systems of humans have evolved(energy transformation and transfer) just as the the human genetic system has evolved. An energetic behavior that is more efficient in a given system(environment:local, regional, global) by definition will work better. Reproduction is an energetic behavior. Some biotic systems utilize "sexual reproduction". Newton and Darwin tell us that those with the best combination will by definition work better. Efficient systems will reproduce themselves in greater numbers and represent a larger percentage of the total. Biological fitness is this process. A biological system is an energy system. The local, regional, global environment are systems of energy. The organisms that work best in a given environment will by definition be more fit. The system of earth allowed for the increased processing power of the human CPU. Concepts(programs) that increase the efficiency of the human system within the environmental system, are more fit concepts. Through time and changing conditions, more fit concepts will proliferate. As the human primate became "self aware", increasing RAM has been favored just as overall memory capacity of the hard drive. Human brains that could store more stimulus in form of memory and simultaneously run multiple programs, have proven to be more "fit". Looking back, mind strategies were limited by the brains(capacity) which stored and utilized them. Population growth is a change in the environment(system) just as a change in the number of trees, amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or volcanism. The presence of more people dictates that the total energy of the solar system did not change but where it existed. So increasing population, along with all changes in climate etc..., favored the evolution of human the human brain and the concepts it used. Hunter gatherers could not have this discussion. The first agrarian societies could not have this discussion. From the Mesopotamian to Persian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Ottoman, British, American and others not mentioned, concepts have transformed and transferred. At one time there was no concept, primates were not capable. As primates evolved, electrical activity in their brains(concepts) that made them more efficient in the environment evolved as well. It is not coincidence that if we go "around the world in 60 seconds", we see the why there is such great variety in "beliefs", "non-belief", "values", "culture", "religion" and "Societies". As the number of people have increased, so has the variability of our interactions and the need to understand it. Science could only progress slowly, as the number of brains increased. As time progressed the best mind strategies "hashed" themselves out, while more brains allowed for "brain" division of labor and specialization. All the way through the "Dark Ages" to the "Enlightenment". Gradually, "Science"(concept/mind strategy) is replacing what use to work for the given conditions that the human brain encountered. We know that "Religions" were in place in their respective regions because populations were relatively isolated. If those "Religions" had been inefficient "brain wave" processes, they would not have resulted in higher numbers of human energy systems(population) in those areas. Science, overall, has made us more efficient in our environment, as changes in environment occur. "Knowledge is Power" literally, in kilojoules. Through time, environment will filter knowledge that is beneficial. We only need to look at the fossil record to realize that the "filtering" process is never a smooth process. In our species, there will be "turmoil" in the evolution of mind strategies, and reaching a consensus between two or seven billion people is quite the process, due to the limits of communication(pathways). Different pathways offer differing amounts of resistance(ohms), which is why things become "lost in translation". From the first who were self aware to the polytheists, monotheists, the Enlightenment and beyond, efficiency(fitness) will emerge in any form or process of energy behavior(expression). This energetic process that we call existence(the universe/energy) will transform and transfer(evolve) just as it has always done. We must remember the vastness/dynamics/sheer complexity of what we call life(i.e."have open minds"), and remember that every thing, process, behavior, thought, "Concept" and discussion are a part of that beautiful system. Whether a vocalization(energy transfer) calls it "God", "Mother Earth", "Creation" or the "Big Bang", they were produced by the same complex interactions of "energy", and through time, environment will select what works best(fitness). Remember, language(words) are limited when they themselves do not contain an equal amount of energy, as the energy systems they attempt to describe. Respectfully, Micah J. Moore ________________________________ From: Adam Sibley <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 1:42:56 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only fully understood by a few brilliant minds. They cannot convey the explanation of these phenomena to me because I would not understand it: I take it on faith that their calculations are correct and that those who conduct a peer review on their work are able to catch every error. A few more examples: - I am looking to solve a problem in my micrometeorology class, and I come across an equation in a textbook which will give me the answer I need. I don't know who came up with the equation, how they tested it, how many times it has been validated (especially newer equations), and how rigorously the reviewer who allowed it into "the literature" thought about it. As I'll be using dozens of equations throughout the semester, I'm not going to gather any of this information myself. I take it on faith that the peer review process has produced a quality product. - The East Anglia Climate Research Unit recently took a lot of heat for not being able to produce the original data by which their global climatologies were produced. Now think of all the data products out there for which people have not asked for the original data. Could every scientist retrace every step they took to come to their final conclusions? Can every scientist point to the data they used to make every graph in every paper they have written? No: nor does every reviewer ask for the data, nor can they catch every error. The scientific method and peer review are the best things we have for validating scientific observations and discoveries, but there is room for errors to slip through the cracks. Or even worse: no scientist likes to think this, but the scientific method and peer review are not impervious to purposely falsified data, especially in studies that involve direct environmental observation. Sure, experiments are supposed to be reproducible, but how long do ecology and environmental science experiments go before a second group of researchers tries to replicate them? Sometimes years, if ever. The basic point I'm trying to make here is that unless you yourself understand on a fundamental level every scientific concept you have used, you are involved in a faith based process of discovery. If you've ever said "I don't know why this works but I trust it does," that is faith. Conclusions based on non-laboratory observation of the natural world also require faith in the integrity of the research group conducting the study. Thank you, Adam Sibley ________________________________ From: William Silvert <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 12:24:13 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that "Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true." Certainly not all, and I doubt the "most". And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word "beliefs") on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Crants" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Science is based on fact. >> Religion is based on faith. >> They don't mix. > > > These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly > religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, > particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all > religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in > specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even > believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that > species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people > who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. > > Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen > who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to > be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits > have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu > and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing > seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian > ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole > period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious > beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. > > Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if > scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of > scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible > partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for > religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political > influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only > to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. > > Jim Crants
