Between science and religion
In this study I do not deal with any version of the "imaginary god" preached by numerous religious denominations and philosophical systems. "My God" must be more "scientific". " Unfortunately, science, unlike theology and philosophy, did not include God in its research. For obvious reasons, it couldn't do it. However, by making a break in its rules, I decided to take care of God, called the Original Being here.
For science, there are three important problems to solve that it has struggled with for thousands of years. It is about the problem of the creation of the universe, about the phenomenon of the appearance of life in it and about the existence of man in the natural environment. These three issues fall within the scope of the creative work I am discussing that was done by the Original Being. Of course, theology sees these topics differently than science.
The dispute is whether to accept the scientific point of view in the light of the above statements or to treat them only in terms of faith. From the point of view of a large number of scientists, religious faith is abstract and illogical. For them, it is an act of uncritical acceptance of some idea of non-existent reality that people accept in an incomprehensible way. Indeed, religious faith is usually irrational. It is sometimes used to meet certain needs regarding our desires or dreams. The most strange thing for science is that religious faith, though illogical or sometimes absurd, is accepted by people. By joining the above dispute, I would like to contribute to changing the attitudes of scientists and followers of different religions.
As I pointed out in the introduction to this part of the book, I try to objectively bring science and religion together. Observing and describing reality, I use logic and scientific analysis. In this case, I go hand in hand with science. At the same time, in view of religion, I would like to act as an objective researcher of works attributed to God.
There are still negative phenomena regarding the principle of dialogue in the discussion between science and religion. Above all, science does not have to take into account the assumptions of religion. It can openly deal with everything that is in its circle of interests, without any artificial barriers. It can also combine the intellectual efforts of all humanity, stopping only against the barrier of the lack of appropriate methods and research tools. However, religion can continue to work behind this barrier. It would be good if, however, it accepted some new forms of intuitive knowledge, which the science has not fully accepted yet, and which are in the field of its interests. In this way, it will complement the aspirations of our competitor to get to know the whole truth about the universe. In order to avoid conflicts with religion, science should make it clear to her that she must have absolutely free hand in her research and demand that she not interrupt her and do not dig in defensive positions in defense of her dogmas. If God is indeed omnipotent and powerful enough, then He does not need to defend Him, for just as He has managed to create the universe, He will be able to confirm His work. It exists objectively, and therefore it is enough that religion will present them and science should examine them.
The challenge for humanity is to develop methods of cooperation between religion and science. Man, as the creator of science and religion, is called to do so, because he should move freely in both these areas. Science provides it, but religion is not always. However, first of all, beware of disregarding one of the parties to the discussion and excluding it point of view from the research.
Studying phenomena both in the natural world and in the human mind is a fascinating task for both parties using different points of view. You just need to find a common denominator for them. It is above all a man's spirituality, which in the case of faith means our immortal personality, and for science it consists in the functioning of the mind in the form of intelligence, will and emotionality. The next area for discussion is the problem of the existence of evil, which has always destroyed the achievements of both areas discussed by me. Here religion can especially provide many solutions that it has developed. Meanwhile, science can only say that evil exists, while admitting that it is not able to definitively eradicate it. Unfortunately, religion is also struggling with this problem, often failing, although it accurately defines the methods of removing evil. Thus, topics concerning the sense of human existence, the purpose of civilization changes and striving to eliminate evil should be a common axis of action of both these areas of life.
The scientist who studies the universe's creation process asks himself: how did all this happen? It would seem that the believer in the reality researcher will approach this issue completely differently. Meanwhile, this more religious seeker of truth asks almost the same question as any other scientist. It sounds like: how could the Creator have done it? Indeed, it does not differ from the question: how did all this arise?
Therefore, the analysis of the origin of the world conducted by a scientist does not have to differ from the method of research conducted by a religious researcher in its form. Both will agree that the world is made of energy. Probably one will say that from the one who came out of nowhere and the other from that which has always existed. Both, therefore, will show themselves by an act of a specific faith, because the former will accept that something came from nothing, and the latter, that of Energy, which existed in God. When a scientist admits that some laws, which, for example, we know thanks to classical or quantum physics, have always existed there, then this believer will state that God has always existed and he had these laws in Himself. Then, although they belong to different research environments, their claims about the origin of the universe will become similar. Maybe even they both come to the conclusion that it was made of the Big Bang. Of course, the scientist will say that the Big Bang has happened itself and God's participation in it is unnecessary, and at the same time the question of what was before him is pointless. For this, the religious researcher will certainly find that he was initiated by the Creator, who previously had in Him the Primordial Energy, imbued with His Laws and Principles. Therefore, in the case of the causality of creation, both will remain at the level of faith and will be almost unanimous. Meanwhile, in the case of its purpose, their opinions will be completely different. Simply, the scientist will not be able to answer the question at all: why was the universe formed? Meanwhile, being in the role of a religious researcher, I answer this question with this entire study.
In this study, I assumed the existence of God in every respect, perfect, eternal and absolute, that is, independent of nothing, and time or space. Actually, at the present level of human development, another concept of the Creator is no longer valid. Only God that is perfect, eternal, absolute and at the same time perfectly good has a meaning. So you can not invent someone or something that is more perfect, more eternal or more perfect from Him.