It is a model that is currently dominating the world, meaning that even science is being polarised within a debate where any form of hint of ‘spiritual’ or ‘non-explainable’ truth – is dismissed as superstition to be snubbed at.

This is also pseudo-science. It’s true that ‘religion’ embodies many stories that are not scientific fact. But social scientific theory instead will easily explain that every society and culture throughout the world uses allegories and stories in order to explain truths that are not easily explainable.

There are many aspects of the supernatural or religious world for example that held scientific facts within their systems of knowledge, which were later proved to be fact.

Astronomy for example, grew out of astrology, early religious teachings included astrology as part of the astronomical observations. Most understandings of sub-atomic particles today involve theoretical modelling which was based on astronomy.

Most of the reason that ‘scientists’ choose to deny the existence of any other theory – is based on their own bias.

Even quantum theory dictates that the bias of the observer will have an influence on the outcome.

Many events that were observable by ancient spiritual guides were based on observation of natural phenomena that were used in order to make decisions.

The ancient shamans and prophets of the past, are the same as the weather forecasters, the astronomers, the farmers observing the seasons for the planting of the crops. The modern world even has people who work in stock exchanges to predict the future markets of world trade.

Modern science is mostly a way to examine reality by using a narrow focus.
Social sciences more often than not by definition understand and describe religious truth as a way to understand the psychology of a social group.

Psychologists work within the medical establishment, and their analysis of individual belief systems analyse how people’s world view affect their interaction with the rest of the world.

Dividing the world into science vs. religious belief – is based more on a model of thinking that is dividing America today. That is mostly based on people who are trying to manipulate the stories from the bible and to state that the allegories of the past are the same as literal truth.

Anyone who has studied religion from an objective perspective of social sciences, will still value the value systems that are embodied within each religion. The stories might be allegorical rather than literal, but they still embody collective knowledge.

The modern world should stop trying to define the world as ‘truth’ or ‘untruth’. There are many different kinds of truth. We should stop trying to bend the truth to say that all truth has to be the same. Just because the moon might appear as a full moon on one night, it doesn’t mean that it will always be the same, or that it looks the same from a different direction.

Truth has many different aspects when viewed from different angles or depth of focus.
Different knowledge systems represent different forms of collective knowledge, that should not be denied.

We should aim to live in a more pluralistic open society.

Either science or religion trying to gain supremacy over the other is the same ego game of death, it causes narrow focus.

We should aim to open our minds and realise that truth exists in many different dimensions depending on the angle you take.

There is a great controversy on Einstein belief in our world. Atheists refer to his other sentence when he says I dont believe in personal god and other quotes and say he was an Atheists! Religous say that he was religous!

Einstein was most likely a Deist. There is some evidence that he conformed to the ideas of Spinoza.

Nissim Dahan could argue that he is also a Deist. Probably a panendeist.

I got confused with the Yoga thing. I’ve been meditating so hard I must have forgotten that it’s an Indian thing. Shows you not to think too much.

And since my wife and I like Yoga, we may very well be part Buddhist to boot.

Yoga is not a Buddhist thing, it’s a Hindu thing tsk tsk

I go off the deep end when I see the stupidity of it all. We’ve been given a chance to enjoy the bounty of life, and all we can do is to conspire against one another, and orchestrate our own demise. What’s the sense?

This is more entertaining than being all nice you know, maybe that’s why.

But if my version of God matches the Hindu version, then maybe I am part Hindu. And maybe, since I like Middle East food so much, I am part Muslim as well. And maybe, since I sometimes get teary-eyed at Christmas, I may well be part Christian. And since my wife and I like Yoga, we may very well be part Buddhist to boot.

I don’t put much stock in labels, Jina. I’m like you sometimes. I go off the deep end when I see the stupidity of it all. We’ve been given a chance to enjoy the bounty of life, and all we can do is to conspire against one another, and orchestrate our own demise. What’s the sense?

It helps to know where you’ve been, to figure out where you’re going. And where we’re going should include a new way of thinking, a new way of speaking to one another, and a reconfiguring of our priorities. How are we going to pull that off Jina?

Simon, a few thoughts, if I may. You say you’re an atheist? I belief in God, but I think of Him as the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe. Einstein believed in Him as the impersonal force that created the physical laws of the universe. For you to say you don’t believe in Him, don’t you have to specify all the various interpretations of Him ever conceived of, and refute each and every one? That’s a hard job, if you ask me.

You wonder why I try to reconcile religion and science. Because there are a lot of religies out there and I’m trying to reach them. Remember Pascal’s wager? Pascal said it pays to bet on God’s existence because: If He doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t matter if you believe in Him. But if He does exist, then you had better believe in Him or He may end up damning you soul, or some such thing. Well, along those lines, forgetting for a moment whether or not God exists, there are so many people out there who believe, that to reach them you better be able to talk their language, and to come up with a formulation that they can relate to, so that you could influence them for the better.

You say that science is concerned with the “truth.” I’m not sure that science has a monopoly on the truth. What caused the Big Bang? What brought the first life into existence? What’s wrong with associating God with the first cause, as Aquinas did? If we align our notions of God with the force that made all things happen initially, then I think we are closing the gap between science, which describes how things are, and God, which made things happen in the first place. Laplace says, “I have no need for that hypothesis.” But I do because I have to find a way to talk to people who believe, in a sensible way. To do that, I can’t ignore their beliefs, but have to work around them.

When you say, “There can be no compromise for harmony’s sake at the expense of the truth, or else what use is science?” I’ll tell you what; I would gladly sacrifice the purity of science of a little harmony. Anything, even the search for truth, which is taken to an extreme, can easily become extreme in itself. Let’s cool it with the search for absolute truth, if it means getting along. And maybe you’re right to say that not all truth is somewhere in the middle between extremes, because that would be self-contradictory. But most truth is somewhere in the middle. We can only approximate the truth, and we should never be so sure of ourselves as to take somebody out because he disagrees. Absolute truth is an illusion.

You say that cavemen were violent with each other. I respectfully beg to disagree. They did have a hard life, as you suggest. They didn’t live too many years. But I bet you they were kind to one another. I saw a movie The Rise of Man, on the Discovery Channel, and they were interviewing anthropolgists from all over the world, who said that early man was pretty gentle, before civilization came along. When things were so difficult, it makes sense that people tried to help each other out. What incentive do you have to kill when everyone is hunting and gathering, and when there is no stored food? In one scene a clan is hanging out in their cave, with plenty of food to eat. Another clan comes in search of food and shelter. Would they kill one another? No, the comfortable clan took the new clan in, in increase the gene pool for procreation. That is the instinctive logic that we have to find our way back to.

I like your prescription to use reason, as a way of righting the ship. That’s what I’m talking about. Except I call it Common Sense: The wisdom born of collective experience.

Lord Kavi, I equate God with energy. You counter that God’s presence would therefore be behind every raindrop. That’s the point. If He is energy, He would be everywhere, even in the smallest of things. So you ask: What about matter? Well, didn’t Einstein prove a relation between energy and matter, with E=MC2? Doesn’t matter contain a ton of energy? Therefore, God is energy, and is a part of all matter.

You also make the point that if we’re created in God’s image, and if He kills with earthquakes, and floods, then it’s OK for us to kill. There is a difference. God had no choice, we do. If God wanted to create life, He had no choice but to create death. You couldn’t create life, without also creating death. Otherwise, how would you know the living from the dead? But we know life from death. When we kill we do it for some stupid reason, like religion.

I know I can’t answer these kinds of questions. But I’m proud of us for being able to talk about them, without going at each other’s throats. Sometimes it’s the discourse itself that is more important than what is being discussed.

Thank you.