Review of the Previous post
The previous post discussed the view that science and religion intersect at the instant where our senses can no longer function and thus our imagination cannot function.
Preview of this post
This post continues the discussion and suggests that the two disciplines really reach the same conclusion but call it by different names.
- Working Criterion- Continued
But that does not mean that those things do not exist or did not exist. The key statement is the universe as we know it. Our knowledge of our universe and hence our imaginations is limited by our ability to observe, comprehend and measure. The abilities of humans do not, and should not, limit the universe, it only limits our knowledge of the universe. For this reason, the term “universe” as used in these essays will mean that which we can sense. In other words, our universe ends where we can no longer sense (this accounts for advances in technology which extends our senses, there will ultimately be a limit to what we can sense, no matter how sophisticated our equipment, see, e.g. Heisenberg Principle). When the limit of our senses is reached, we can imagine, but whatever we imagine cannot be tested for its correctness or its falsity because we cannot sense beyond that limit. There may have been one or more universes in existence but not universes which we have the ability to know. This concept seems to support the theory of God used later in this essay.
Our imagination ends at the beginning of the universe as we know it. What happened before that universe was created must be taken by science on faith – faith that something happened to give rise to a universe in which we can exist. No matter what that “something” was, it must be taken on faith that it was there since it is impossible for us to rely on senses for this time before our universe. Therefore, while science may not identify that something as “God,” it appears that this “something” is merely another name for what religion calls “God.”
Religion, on the other hand, uses nearly the same method as science, but merely uses different indicia and relationships. Religion looks at what can be sensed (nature, humans, animals, etc) and immediately makes the jump to what cannot be sensed as the initiator of what can be sensed. This initiator is identified by religion as “God.”
Science assumes that the “something” which initiated our universe is totally neutral whereas religion assumes (hopes) that that “something” (aka “God”) is benevolent. No matter what it is called, both science and religion seek the same thing, both reach a point where imagination is useless and both religion and science move beyond that point using faith. Both are seeking “that which is unknown, unknowable and unimaginable”, they merely identify it differently.
As stated by Albert Einstein: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Therefore, we should be aware of the necessity of coupling both religious and scientific concepts in approaching this issue[1].
Preview of the next post
The next post introduces a survey of the previous philosophical attempts to define God.
[1] See, also, “The New Enlightenment” by Edward O. Wilson, in The Meaning of Human Existence Liveright Publishing Corp (New York, 2014), pages 37-52 where Wilson discusses the confluence of science and the humanities.