Issues relating to meaning, sense-making, and cognition of the world

Philosophy

There is a very basic problem associated with each individual's innately subjective understanding of the world: it makes generalizing feelings or experiences to all of humanity unavoidably inaccurate. In other words, no matter how deeply we might feel about one thing or another, we cannot reasonably assert that anyone else feels the same way. Of course it is possible that someone might, but since every one of us is only privy to our own sources of input -- our senses -- there is no way to truly know how another person thinks or feels. Obviously, this presents a problem for religion, because -- as Smart argues -- religion is concerned with providing some form of meaning for our existence. Yet, precisely how that meaning is conveyed must fall somewhere in between pure individualism and interconnectedness.

Throughout the history of mankind there have been two major ways by which human beings have claimed to attain knowledge: through direct observation and through revelation. One of these modes of gaining knowledge has led us down the most practical avenues of our development. It most likely, for example, that the earliest people who discovered how to harness fire did so by observing it in action, and employing trial and error to eventually arrive at a workable technique. It is far less likely that these individuals were simply inspired to rub two sticks together in a particular manner independent of any empirical knowledge achieved over the course of their lives. In other words, few people would accept the idea that God told the first person who made fire how to go about it.

Nevertheless, almost certainly since the time of fire's invention, human beings have also embraced rational claims about the nature of the sun, stars, planets and natural phenomena of the earth in the absence of detailed observations. Gods, goddesses, and spirits have been used innumerable times to describe features of our universe that seem independent of what can be directly perceived. Both ways of describing the world have coexisted since the dawn of our species; so both the scientific and divine ways of laying claim to knowledge could feasibly be characterized as natural processes of the human mind.

Religion, however, could potentially be understood as being more natural than science in that it seems to grow organically out of human emotion (Roberts). Essentially, people often feel that something about the universe must be true, simply because they feel so strongly about it. The beauty of a sunset or of a religions song can inspire many to embrace religion: "One can get the sense of the numinous God outside the cathedral, church, or temple -- in nature. Religious thinkers and believers have long heard the 'voice of God' in the wind on the tips of the soaring mountains, for instance, or in the churning of the ocean," (Smart 154). Of course, there may be insufficient observable evidence to tell us, for example, that Jesus was the son of God; yet qualia combined with rational thought processes may still indicate to us that this must have been the case. Overall, the debate between religion and science stems from the philosophical debate between rationalism and empiricism. In this context, religion can only be perceived as more natural than science in the way that human existence itself requires some form of faith; whereas the scientific pursuit of knowledge only regulates how we operate our day-to-day existence under the confines of a few key rational assumptions.

Science and religion have historically possessed a tumultuous relationship based upon the fact that the latter claims to hold the ultimate answers to the most fundamental questions of existence, while the former claims to hold the means to discovering many of these answers. Consequently, for much of human history they have been viewed as being analogous avenues to gaining knowledge of the world, merely attacked from different directions; science must eventually prove with reason what is already accepted upon faith. However, a number of scientific observations and interpretations have come into direct conflict with established doctrines of the Western, Christian Church. These scientific theories have caused many to question the validity of their faith, and many others to question the validity of science. Usually, the conflicts originate from formalized interpretations of Christianity rather than upon the fundamental basis of faith. In other words, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a divine being, but it can establish dates and sequences of history that contrast accepted notions. For this reason, science has sometimes been viewed as the ally of religion and at other times its direct enemy.

To Hume, "All that we perceive through our senses are impressions and these are not external physical objects but contents of consciousness," (McGreal 267). This is an ingenious leap from Descartes' conception of knowledge because Hume did not deny the possibility of an all-encompassing concrete reality, which influences us; instead, he argued that even if such a reality existed, it would be impossible to differentiate it from subjective points-of-view (Russell). Scientists, on the other hand, find this hurtle impossible to overcome; as a result, they are forced to ignore it. In order for statements in science to possess any empirically workable link to truth, an objective physical world must be assumed; this assumption is innately rational in nature -- it requires faith.