part0006

Since the beginning of recorded human history, we’ve seen that religion has played a large part in our development. Around 600 BCE, philosophy enters the scene and challenges us with important questions about the world and our place in it. Although some form of science has been around since humankind, in the 16th century the “Scientific Revolution” was born. Science builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world, which, among other things, results in benefits to humankind that allows us to live longer, healthier, and happier lives. Given that we now have science, do we still need philosophy and religion? Even if we do keep them around, are they even compatible with science?

The answer to this question should be a no-brainer, however, as Americans, we have the unique ability to give multiple definitions to the same term, therefore, screwing up what was once a perfectly simple concept. Let me start off by sharing with you my overly simplistic definition that shows the relationship between these concepts; then we can expand from there. Philosophy is what we think, religion is what we believe, and science is what is. If this is the case, we can see that all three are vital to our way of life and all three can be compatible when what we think, what we believe, and what is, is all the same. But unfortunately, unlike the piano keys living side-by-side on Stevie Wonder’s piano keyboard, this harmony won’t work for everyone.

Many people might have a problem with the idea of “what is” being determined only scientifically. For example, religious “Truth” (did you know that if you capitalize the first letter of any word it becomes indisputable?) is seen as the ultimate “what is” although no science is involved. Some sects of Christianity actually hold that we cannot trust science because Satan prevents us from knowing the real truth or we are incapable of knowing truth because of sin. But how can we trust religious truth when each religion has their own “Truths” that are incompatible with other religious “Truths”? Philosophy would also have a problem with my claim that only science can only determine what is . Philosophy holds that there are many truths we can uncover through philosophical thought that we could never prove scientifically; for example, the existence of God. But, of course, depending on the philosopher, philosophy can both “prove” and “disprove” the existence of God.

At the end of the day, science is the common denominator between all humans, of all faiths, who subscribe to any philosophy. Through mathematical and logical truth, most of us can agree on what actually is. Still, science falls short in providing answers that only philosophy and/or religion can answer. Why are we here? Why is there something versus nothing? Why do we ask so many “why” questions?

Expanding on philosophy and religion a bit more, philosophy essentially means the love of wisdom usually derived from the contemplation of issues related to human existence . However, in researching the definition of religion, I came across over 50 distinct definitions. The main reason for this, I would suggest, is that people like to define religion based on characteristics of their own belief systems. Despite the differences, the central theme to all these definitions is the same: religion is how we understand our place in the universe and our relationship to others around us .

There is an overlap with religion and philosophy, but religion tends to be associated with the worship of one or more deities, as well as ritualistic practices. But I would argue that these associations are not fundamental to religion and can, and often do, discourage people from appreciating what religion is really about.

Unlike philosophy, religion is more feeling-based than thought-based. When we have those moments of deep connections with the universe or other people, we are having religious experiences ; not “philosophical experiences” or “scientific experiences.” Although these types of feelings can be explained scientifically as chemical reactions in the brain, these feelings often lead to what many would consider “irrational” conclusions that are not based on logic or reason. For example, the unconditional lifelong love a father feels for his daughter when holding her for the first time, the overwhelming sense of oneness with the universe when viewing the world from the top of the Italian Alps, or gazing up at the stars and knowing that we are not alone in the universe. To claim any knowledge of “Truth” — or the existence of a supernatural being — from these kinds of experiences is to pervert the essence of religion.

What about the more widely-accepted view of religion that involves the supernatural? For many well-adjusted adults who pride themselves in critical thinking, there is no place for this kind of superstition in their worldview. But this doesn’t mean that humanity would be better off without it nor does it mean that you would be a better human being by not embracing some form of it. The promise of immortality in paradise, a divine purpose, and being looked after by a heavenly father, gives hope to those who cannot find hope elsewhere, and those who may not be as emotionally strong to accept less desirable possibilities. This hope allows people to live better lives, even if the hope is grounded in fantasy .

So we need science, philosophy, and religion — the human experience would be lacking without any one of them. However, making all three compatible with each other is not easy, but possible. As Albert Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

I think what he really meant to say was, “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Science without philosophy is unsatisfactory. Philosophy without science is visionless. Philosophy without religion is subpar. Religion without philosophy sucks big time.”