Should I give Biswas the business?
Humor aside, he makes some points, but much of the essay is rather sophomoric. Comparisons of religion and science are inevitable, and instructive, but they seldom reflect a deep understanding of both categories. In this case, Biswas knows a heck of a lot more about science than he does about religion. Since I don't know anything about either, I can be even-handed. The main point, which I'm always trying to make, is that religion is not about explaining, or explaining away, anything. At the core of every genuine religion is genuine spiritual (i.e. ecstatic) experience. This experience is always totally convincing, even if a description of it is not. The exoteric structure of established religion is stuck with the task of promulgating such descriptions, as well as handling all sorts marginally related business, which often seems more important on a day-to-day basis in people's lives. That makes religion an easy target, but it doesn't get to heart of the matter.
The basic fact of our existence is that we live in a mysterious situation. I like to say that religion is not about explaining, but about articulating, the mystery. To get metaphorical, it's as if creation is a music in which we are notes. We can vibrate in tune with the whole, which corresponds to happiness, productivity, good relationships, etc., or else we strike a discordant note, leaving us miserable, and damaging the overall harmony. Religion should be a sort of tuning device, teaching us the proper pitch and key, even if there is a sadness to the song. To the degree that mystery becomes articulate, it serves as prophylactic against mere dogmatism, thus allowing for the kind of investigation practiced by science.
Not that it always works out that way, but I think there is often a fundamental misunderstanding on this point, usually on the part of people who think that religion is some sort of worthless holdover from a primitive past. Actually, science suggests that our mental capacity today is no different from that of the people who first created religion. I suspect that it was not naivete, but experiential utility that led them on. The fact that science can, in some respects, be analogized with religion shows that we have not yet exhausted that utility.
p.s. i never read but the title. just wanted to see alex's response. thanks, good doctor. [posted by the wheel, brooklyn]
|
Humor aside, he makes some points, but much of the essay is rather sophomoric. Comparisons of religion and science are inevitable, and instructive, but they seldom reflect a deep understanding of both categories. In this case, Biswas knows a heck of a lot more about science than he does about religion. Since I don't know anything about either, I can be even-handed. The main point, which I'm always trying to make, is that religion is not about explaining, or explaining away, anything. At the core of every genuine religion is genuine spiritual (i.e. ecstatic) experience. This experience is always totally convincing, even if a description of it is not. The exoteric structure of established religion is stuck with the task of promulgating such descriptions, as well as handling all sorts marginally related business, which often seems more important on a day-to-day basis in people's lives. That makes religion an easy target, but it doesn't get to heart of the matter.
The basic fact of our existence is that we live in a mysterious situation. I like to say that religion is not about explaining, but about articulating, the mystery. To get metaphorical, it's as if creation is a music in which we are notes. We can vibrate in tune with the whole, which corresponds to happiness, productivity, good relationships, etc., or else we strike a discordant note, leaving us miserable, and damaging the overall harmony. Religion should be a sort of tuning device, teaching us the proper pitch and key, even if there is a sadness to the song. To the degree that mystery becomes articulate, it serves as prophylactic against mere dogmatism, thus allowing for the kind of investigation practiced by science.
Not that it always works out that way, but I think there is often a fundamental misunderstanding on this point, usually on the part of people who think that religion is some sort of worthless holdover from a primitive past. Actually, science suggests that our mental capacity today is no different from that of the people who first created religion. I suspect that it was not naivete, but experiential utility that led them on. The fact that science can, in some respects, be analogized with religion shows that we have not yet exhausted that utility.
- alex 9-14-2000 9:43 pm
p.s. i never read but the title. just wanted to see alex's response. thanks, good doctor. [posted by the wheel, brooklyn]
- linda 9-15-2000 4:25 am [add a comment]
I fall for that trick every time (same thing I said when I was born).
- alex 9-15-2000 4:34 am [add a comment]