Is it okay to compare and contrast science and religion?

[Sushan]

The author uses his knowledge regarding quantum physics and other philosophical studies to challenge and see the true meaning of the religious teachings that the world has known and believed for decades.

But as far as we know, religious teachings are a set of beliefs that are based on various historical events, cultural values and even mythical stories. Some of these things cannot be either proved or neglected by either science or philosophy.

Considering that argument, is this okay to compare religions with science as the author has done via this book?

[Alias]

Who gets to say what's "okay" to write about?
No advocate of science, as far as I know, has ever tried to support a scientific theory with religious text.
Many religious apologists have tried to support religious belief with scientific data.
Do you wonder why that is?

Comparisons between any two entities, concepts or systems may be valid or invalid, depending on the balance of comparable qualities and the arguments offered. But of course it's always okay to make an attempt. Why wouldn't it be?

[Nick_A]

Sushan

There are three levels of cognition for Man in society: the exoteric which is like living in Plato's cave, the esoteric which is the vertical path in which a person begins to experience meaning, and the transcendent level where Man becomes his conscious human potential.

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/

Finding the complimentary relationship between science and religion requires person to be at least on the esoteric level. The exoteric level is good for arguing but not for experiencing the complimentary relationship between objective facts and objective values.

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Of course there are a minority aware of the importance of this balanced relationship but as of now, not enough to offset the influence of deniers on the exoteric level. Perhaps in 100 years it may be different but the question is if our species can survive this imbalance for 100 years.

[Sushan]

Who gets to say what's "okay" to write about?
No advocate of science, as far as I know, has ever tried to support a scientific theory with religious text.
Many religious apologists have tried to support religious belief with scientific data.
Do you wonder why that is?

Comparisons between any two entities, concepts or systems may be valid or invalid, depending on the balance of comparable qualities and the arguments offered. But of course it's always okay to make an attempt. Why wouldn't it be?

It is okay to attempt than waiting doing nothing. That may be the reason for the people who tried to support religious beliefs with scientific data. But why it is not happened in the other way round? Why scientists has not gone after religious evidence to prove scientific findings?
As far as I understand, that is merely because the two entities has nothing to do with each other. So such a comparison is unnecessary as well as of no use

[Sushan]

Sushan

There are three levels of cognition for Man in society: the exoteric which is like living in Plato's cave, the esoteric which is the vertical path in which a person begins to experience meaning, and the transcendent level where Man becomes his conscious human potential.

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/

Finding the complimentary relationship between science and religion requires person to be at least on the esoteric level. The exoteric level is good for arguing but not for experiencing the complimentary relationship between objective facts and objective values.

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Of course there are a minority aware of the importance of this balanced relationship but as of now, not enough to offset the influence of deniers on the exoteric level. Perhaps in 100 years it may be different but the question is if our species can survive this imbalance for 100 years.

Thank you for this valuable idea. I agree that various humans are at various levels of cognition. And the ones with better cognition will see that almost all the religions have similarities in their spiritual contents (but not in the literal content that may include various myths and beliefs which are unique for those religions).

But how this is applicable to a comparison between science and religion? Can we take that at the transcendent level both science and religion too have a common ground? Does it always depend on the level and extent of human perception?