Science Vs. Religion: Beyond The Western Traditions

[rug]

Buddhist monks release a lantern into the air at Borobudur temple in Magelang, Central Java, Indonesia. Where does their tradition fit into the science vs. religion debate? (Ulet Ifansasti/Getty Images0

by Adam Frank
July 13, 201410:27 AM ET

In the United States, the debate between science and religion seems to be powered by a perpetual motion machine. The claims that Neil deGrasse Tyson's inspired Cosmos series was anti-religious stands as the latest salvo in a long battle that generates lots heat but very little light. Having been in many of these debates, both formally and informally, I'm often struck by how narrow the discussion remains. That's because often people don't want to talk about science and religion; they really want to talk about science and their religion. It's exactly in that first step that the conversation goes down hill for all sides.

When surveying the progress of world history from the end of last age onward, historian Ian Morris identified two principle geographic cores out which civilization would emerge. The first was in the fertile crescent of the Mideast and led to cultures we like to think of as "The West." The second was located in China and would serve as the nexus for the civilizations of "The East." Of course, Morris would acknowledge that things are far more complicated than this simple binary division. But it's a perspective that yields an important point for us.

With more than one civilization, there is more than one tradition of religious or spiritual thinking. That multiplicity has dramatic consequences for thinking about how we think about science and religion.

In a recent New York Times interview, Jay Garfield, a philosopher with an interest in Buddhism, tried to articulate how different the perspective of a non-western spiritual lineage could be:

"What gets called 'philosophy of religion' ... is really the philosophy of Abrahamic religion: basically, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Most of the questions addressed in those discussions are simply irrelevant to most of the world's other religious traditions. Philosophers look at other religious traditions with the presumption that they are more or less the same, at least in outline, as the Abrahamic religions, and even fight about whether other traditions count as religions at all based upon their sharing certain features of the Abrahamic religions. That is a serious ethnocentrism that can really blind us to important phenomena."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/07/13/329759036/science-vs-religion-beyond-the-western-traditions

[JEFF9K]

1. The people who seem most concerned about this issue in America today ...

... believe in a bizarre offshoot of a religion that is at odds in many ways with the holy book they purport to stand on. I'm talking of course about the "religious" right.

After reading the Bible it's hard for me to understand how conservatives think it aligns with their viewpoint.

[rug]

2. Welcome to the Religion Group, Jeff!

[libodem]

3. .

. [img][/img]

[AtheistCrusader]

4. I'm perfectly wiling to accept Buddhism as a culture, philosophy, or religion.

Take your pick, it can be any or all of those at once.

I have observed, most religious people I know flat reject it as a religion, because it is non-theistic.

[cbayer]

5. I bet if you took a poll here, you would find that most religious people you know

fully accept Buddhism as a religion. Those who post here tend to have a much broader view of religion than just "theism". Perhaps that is why we so often reach an impasse, because there are assumptions made that are not correct.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. I don't know you, or anyone else here.

[cbayer]

8. Oh, that's a shame. I know lots of people here and generally include them in

my perspective on how other people see the world.

What are we to you?

[AtheistCrusader]

9. A name on a political forum on the internet with no bar to entry and very little in the way of

quality control/discernment of actual political motives.

[cbayer]

10. Well, that helps me understand how you can do some of the things you do here.

I guess my life is full of people who really have no bar to entry and very little in the way of quality control/discernment of actual political motives.

And I kind of like it that way.

Of course, I really don't spend any of my time trashing some people while in the company of other people, either IRL or on the internet, so maybe it just feels like less of a video game to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. I'm sure you're trying to flip that around on me in some witty way, but it just comes acros

s as not making any sense.

DU is by design; anonymous. You don't know me, and I am not 'in your life', period. And vice versa.

[cbayer]

17. It's only anonymous up to a point.

That is, I don't know your real name or some other specific details about you.

But I do know you in other ways which may be just as valid or even more valid.

In addition, I have the opportunity to observe you interacting with others, which provides me with even more information.

People engage in this medium because they want to be recognized, they want to be known and understood to some degree.

Sorry, but that's real whether you like it or not. And to exclude the people here from your pool when you are talking about all the believers you know really makes no sense, in less it just fits the agenda better.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. "Sorry, but that's real whether you like it or not."

You should speak in fewer absolutes, because no:

"People engage in this medium because they want to be recognized, they want to be known and understood to some degree."

that is not universally true. I want my POINT to be understood. I care not if you understand *me*, and I do not prefer for you to recognize me either. If you could, that would suggest my identity is discoverable to others as well. There are some people I do not desire to know I post here. In any capacity.

[cbayer]

21. Ok, it's not the case for you.

You are not nearly as anonymous as you may think, unless you have purposefully fabricated some information about yourself.

What is really different about internet relationships is how distorted things can become. Without ever meeting someone, one can develop intense feelings of animosity bordering on outright hatred and spend large amounts of their time specifically targeting an individual or two.

IRL, you can generally get away from these people. It's harder to do on a message board.

That really borders on obsession and can be pretty scary stuff. So keeping things somewhat anonymous can be important.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I know what I have shared.

One could reasonably narrow down my gender, the county in which I live and work. My employer. My age within a decade. The fact that my father is dead, and recently so.

Beyond that, not much.


I do not target individuals. I target ideas. You might note, from time to time, I have even complimented Rug on various positions, even though he is a member of the single largest religious-political hybrid religion in this country, against which I have had my most bitter political struggles. I like Rug as a person, even if I get frustrated with some of his positions. I am not so wedded to my ideals that I build aggro against them over time.

(dishonest debate tactics, or the perception thereof, a possible exception.)

[cbayer]

23. I wasn't necessarily accusing you of targeting individuals, though

talking ugly behind people's backs might be considered such. I will leave that up to you.

Aha!!! You like Rug as a person, which would lead one to conclude that you "know" rug in some way.

I believe that you are not so wedded to your ideals that you lose all your perspective when it comes to others. That sets you apart to some extent and is probably why so many still engage with you.

BTW, had to look up aggro in the Urban Dictionary as well.

Sometimes it is the best source.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Rug has passed the Turing test, to my satisfaction.

More importantly, he's declined to defend certain things to the last, as a blind ideologue might, on a few occasions, which says *something* about him as a poster, but that's about it. I like those moments of clarity. But no, I do not know him.

Again, UD is Wikipedia without any quality controls or censorship. Use at your own risk. I suggest using it to decipher slang ONLY and not for established language, such as 'atheist' or 'agnostic'. Terms readily found in mainstream dictionaries.

I realize the entire premise is shaky, dictionaries do not establish language (with the possible exception of the French official dictionary) of course, but some have more credibility than others.

[hrmjustin]

11. You don't get to knoe certain people here?

Do you make friends with people here?

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Review post five.

It's an error, for a variety of reasons. For one, I know a lot more religious people in meatspace, than I do posters here on this board, so "I bet if you took a poll here, you would find that most religious people you know fully accept Buddhism as a religion" is completely incorrect. Most religious people I know, even if I allowed such a strange definition of 'know' as to encompass members of this board, no, the answer remains, most reject Buddhism as a religion, and instead refer to it as a philosophy. Most atheists I know are ambivalent on the subject. As am I. If they want to call it a religion, more power to.

And secondly, I don't 'know' anyone from this board. I thought I bumbled into a co-worker and a friend once for his favored use of a particular idiom, and presence at a political event, but I asked him and he said no.

[hrmjustin]

14. No I mean you don't interact via pms or other social media with members here.

I do with some.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. No.

Occasional PM's, when offering support or encouragement to someone who is getting beat up in a thread and the wear shows, or in response to PM's, but no. 99.9% of my interactions on this board are transmitted in the clear, and I know none of these posters outside DU.

[hrmjustin]

16. I offer the same in pms and I get to know a few personally.

I know 1 irl because she is a member of my congregation.

[cbayer]

19. Had to go to Urban Dictionary to get definition of meatspace.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. I certainly hope not.

Urban Dictionary is as authoritative as 'what some guy muttered in an alley'.

[cbayer]

7. Well worth the read.

I like the concept of asking "Which Religion" when there is a broad brush statement made about religion. It brings up a whole different set of questions.