For the past few years, I’ve been pondering religion “versus” science issues and have worked out an initial attempt of what seems reasonable to me. This post summarizes the ideas as a starting point for more detailed exploration, both with study and discussion with others. The basic idea is that it is a finely balanced choice, more finely balanced than most like to admit. The goal here is to be able to articulate why to make a particular choice, rather than just say “It’s how i was raised”, or “I like this”, or “I don’t like that”, etc. It’s an attempt at a rational perspective.

Having studied science for a long time, both as an engineer and for personal interest, it seems obvious that our knowledge of the universe is not advanced enough to describe the fundamental nature of reality and make decisive statements about the existence, or lack of, a transcendent aspect to it. In fact, the human tendency towards overconfidence and self-delusion (present in both religious and secular thinking, only more obvious in religious) demands that we treat even rational statements with a level of skepticism, and need to take into account our natural biases when we formulate an opinion, if we truly want it to be rational.

Regarding the possibility of a transcendent realm, we also cannot state with certainty that it does exist. There simply is no proof of a transcendent or spiritual realm. However, we can state that there is evidence for such, if we are careful to distinguish between evidence and proof. The evidence may be anecdotal, so we recognize it is weak, but some does exist.

This makes the possibility of transcendence more interesting than it seems at first glance. If science cannot rule out the possibility of a transcendent realm, and there is at least some evidence for it, then it is reasonable to think through the possibility in more detail.

A reasonable next step would be to survey the dominant religions. If there is any validity to the personal observations and experiences that form evidence, then they would likely be represented in one or more of the worlds major faiths. With that, one can see if there is any way to differentiate one from another.

This can be done by looking at the belief systems and how they correlate to experiences today, but that is complex enough that I have not been able to see patterns. Instead, since all religions are grounded in history, we could also try looking for fundamental differentiations there. In doing so, I think there is an interesting pattern. Most faiths tend to claim validity through claims of antiquity or the testimony of a small set of devout followers, the latter often claiming miraculous validation.

Christianity appears slightly different in this regard. While it does have a small set of initial followers who claimed to experience the miraculous, the events occurred largely in the public eye — in the midst of thronging crowds, involving thousands of people, or involving people who would have been well known in the area. By themselves, these things mean little because we cannot corroborate them today even though the historicity of the region is generally well documented.

However as Christianity spread throughout the area, these very narratives formed a central part of the message. It would have been easy to detect if they had been only fictional accounts, and detractors could easily have argued against the claims. But in fact, that didn’t seem to happen at all — I don’t know of any consistent claim that the stories were all made up. Instead, ancient detractors describe Jesus as a “sorcerer” to refute claims made about him. Ironically, this validates the claims in a back-handed manner, because such a designation acknowledges that Jesus really was doing extraordinary things.

Of course, this argument isn’t very robust, but it does represent one that can be weighed against both modern claims and one’s own observations. In my experience, this provides the most consistent story and best matches my understanding and experience of the world.

So in the finely balanced choice of what to believe, I find that this framework of ideas fits both my view of reality and my personal experience.

This is a framework for further investigations, but only a framework. It will be interesting to continue testing the ideas. In particular, understanding the relationships between different faiths would be helpful, even if this framework seems solid to me. Also, I’ve come to see how much transcendent truth may have been obscured by the religious terminology used to convey it, at least within Christianity, and it would be helpful to see if there are pictures that can help peel away that baggage and make it easier to think about these truths without having to constantly wrestle with cultural complexities.

Time will tell how this will continue to play out, but I plan to continue posting updates during the walk.