Religion in a Scientific Age?

quote:

The dogmatism of many religious believers bothers me, but I also dislike the crassness of strident atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens. I believe that there is something essential at the core of the great religions, but that all too many believers become entangled in the superficial aspects of their chosen faith.

Rather than attempt a summary of my views from scratch, here's one I prepared earlier for a couple of friends, who had just read Dawkins' book. It's a little abstract, informed, as it is, by the sum total of my philosophical influences, but I hope that it will be of some use to those forum members who haven't already made their minds up.

quote:

My thoughts so far...

All the interesting stuff (from my PoV) is out of the way by the end of the
first chapter, in which Dawkins contrasts Einsteinian "religion"
(E-religion) with the supernatural variety (S-religion).

He will focus on the latter for the rest of the book - fair enough, as this
is what most people see as religion, or adhere to, if they're believers. I
accept that S-religion is untenable, and expect to agree with much of what
he says. There are no supernatural facts.

However, I expect his tone will grate because:
a. he's a rather obnoxious fellow anyway; and
b. arguably, E-religious experiences are the root of S-religion

b. is one of the lines of thought explored by William James in "Varieties of
Religious Experience". Founders of religious sects often have dramatic
E-religious experiences: overwhelming feelings of awe and wonder at the
compexity and scale of the natural order; an inchoate sense of gratitude
that we are here at all to witness it. Often these are culturely mediated
(e.g. visions of the Second Coming); but not always. I think that James
views these as the living root of religion, and I'm inclined to agree. This
is why I have some residual sympathy for S-religion, even though many of its
fruits have fallen a long way from these roots. I certainly admire some of
its more moderate proponents.

The important thing about these experiences, which Dawkins doesn't take into
account is that they are, by their nature, mystical - i.e. they cannot be
adequately described in language, or otherwise conceptualised. I think that
this fact alone (if accepted) ought to make them anomalous in Dawkin's quite
hardcore positivist worldview - I'm sure he would dispute the idea that
there are any such ineffable experiences.

This ties in with Buddhism, which boiled down (i.e. stripping out the
S-religious stuff about reincarnation, etc.) amounts to:

a. It is possible to experience the world as it is in itself, unmediated by
conceptual baggage
b. It is desirable to do so, as it frees us from suffering (caused,
ultimately, by our perception of ourselves as isolated egos)

I'm not claiming to be enlightened - that really would be too much! - but my
experience of meditation (outside of any Buddhist community or organisation,
or any other religious context) supports the above claims.

In sum, religion/faith, stripped to its barest essentials, is the claim that
there is such a thing as ineffable experience, and that it is valuable. I
think this is probably true; I suspect that Dawkins doesn't. There is a
historical link between such experience, and organised religion, but this
gets more tenuous as the level of organisation increases, and the religion
is dumbed down to compete in the meme marketplace.

I doubt that I'll have much of interest to say about the rest of the book,
as this is the critical point, at which Dawkins and I diverge.

Hope that's understandable - and not entirely crazy! It's a fascinating
topic that I've thought hard about, and I'd be interested in some rational
critique!