I largely align with your framing, though I find myself pausing at the final step of affirming science and spirituality while setting religion aside.
For me, part of the hesitation comes from the domains being compared. Mathematics, though not empirical, seems to touch questions that science never fully reaches, yet even there Gödel reminds us of inherent limits. That doesn’t automatically favor religion, but it makes me cautious about assuming science is the right lens for questions that go beyond its scope.
I’m also unsure about the role of spirituality here. Retaining it while rejecting religion seems to preserve certain metaphysical intuitions without clarifying what grounds them. For me, this can feel more like personal preference or comfort than serious engagement with ultimate questions.
Ultimately, I see the issue less as science versus religion and more as what kind of truth I or anyone is seeking. One can commit to empiricism, embrace subjective spirituality, or pursue religion as an inquiry into eternity. What seems like a middle ground to me often reads as the familiar agnosticism of science, presented as intellectually neutral while implicitly dismissing what it labels as ignorance or superstition.
Biniyam, thank you your very thoughtful response. I will clarify my position. Every religion has two aspects- its philosophy and its stories. I have seen too much bloodshed on which story is true for me to not have an inherent suspicion of organised religion. When I look at the underlying philosophies, I find the same spiritual truth- Thy will be done in Christianity; abide in the Brahman in Hinduism, follow the divine will in Sikhism and the Tao philosophy of Lao Tse Tzingh. I think religious stories distract from the serious questions while providing no additional answers. I fully accept that some people need an immanent God for their faith. I dont. I am perfectly content, in fact strongly believe that if there is a God it is transcendent. Spirituality would be pick and choose comfort if one selected from different philosophies across religions. I see no differences in the underlying philosophy, only in the stories and metaphors. As far science, I am dismissive of the only materialism approach of science; I respect its methods and inherent scepticism as a fundamental strength. Please stay engaged. I am gradually building towards a reconciliation between science and spirituality.
Dare I suggest that we are worse beset by the division between natural, supernatural and artificial? In our current frame of reference a beaver building a dam is apparently more natural than us doing so, while the natural quantum world is stuffed full of agents who/that create our world of everyday certainties in ways we can only describe using placeholders (like the mathematical i). “Supernatural” accounts in my experience seek to explain the deepest secrets using analogies borrowed from everyday understanding, but their theories fail to encapsulate the most everyday of mysteries eg gravity or solidity. Even the separation of physicality from values becomes contentious when we consider economics, as informational entropy seems intimately connected with both, and every Fibonacci spiral we see in nature suggests the mathematics we invented isn’t artificial.
David, Thank you. I personally don't see any conflict between science and spirituality. I don't think anything is supernatural. There is reality beyond matter, but that is also part of the natural world. The duality I refer to in this piece is between science and organised religion. At this stage I am pointing out the limitations of duality and division in our thinking. Fundamental underlying reality is a unity. Watch this space as I build the argument towards that unity. Please keep reading and feeding back.
I largely align with your framing, though I find myself pausing at the final step of affirming science and spirituality while setting religion aside.
For me, part of the hesitation comes from the domains being compared. Mathematics, though not empirical, seems to touch questions that science never fully reaches, yet even there Gödel reminds us of inherent limits. That doesn’t automatically favor religion, but it makes me cautious about assuming science is the right lens for questions that go beyond its scope.
I’m also unsure about the role of spirituality here. Retaining it while rejecting religion seems to preserve certain metaphysical intuitions without clarifying what grounds them. For me, this can feel more like personal preference or comfort than serious engagement with ultimate questions.
Ultimately, I see the issue less as science versus religion and more as what kind of truth I or anyone is seeking. One can commit to empiricism, embrace subjective spirituality, or pursue religion as an inquiry into eternity. What seems like a middle ground to me often reads as the familiar agnosticism of science, presented as intellectually neutral while implicitly dismissing what it labels as ignorance or superstition.
Biniyam, thank you your very thoughtful response. I will clarify my position. Every religion has two aspects- its philosophy and its stories. I have seen too much bloodshed on which story is true for me to not have an inherent suspicion of organised religion. When I look at the underlying philosophies, I find the same spiritual truth- Thy will be done in Christianity; abide in the Brahman in Hinduism, follow the divine will in Sikhism and the Tao philosophy of Lao Tse Tzingh. I think religious stories distract from the serious questions while providing no additional answers. I fully accept that some people need an immanent God for their faith. I dont. I am perfectly content, in fact strongly believe that if there is a God it is transcendent. Spirituality would be pick and choose comfort if one selected from different philosophies across religions. I see no differences in the underlying philosophy, only in the stories and metaphors. As far science, I am dismissive of the only materialism approach of science; I respect its methods and inherent scepticism as a fundamental strength. Please stay engaged. I am gradually building towards a reconciliation between science and spirituality.
Very well written Swaran! We all can do with a dose of Jainism tolerance!
Thank you Soumitra. Jainism's uniqueness is hardly ever acknowledged. do keep sending thoughts on other posts as well
Dare I suggest that we are worse beset by the division between natural, supernatural and artificial? In our current frame of reference a beaver building a dam is apparently more natural than us doing so, while the natural quantum world is stuffed full of agents who/that create our world of everyday certainties in ways we can only describe using placeholders (like the mathematical i). “Supernatural” accounts in my experience seek to explain the deepest secrets using analogies borrowed from everyday understanding, but their theories fail to encapsulate the most everyday of mysteries eg gravity or solidity. Even the separation of physicality from values becomes contentious when we consider economics, as informational entropy seems intimately connected with both, and every Fibonacci spiral we see in nature suggests the mathematics we invented isn’t artificial.
David, Thank you. I personally don't see any conflict between science and spirituality. I don't think anything is supernatural. There is reality beyond matter, but that is also part of the natural world. The duality I refer to in this piece is between science and organised religion. At this stage I am pointing out the limitations of duality and division in our thinking. Fundamental underlying reality is a unity. Watch this space as I build the argument towards that unity. Please keep reading and feeding back.