Reconsidering Religion and Science

The resent debate between Bill Nye “The Science Guy” and Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum, has fueled the unnecessary conflict between science and religion.  Ultimately, science and religion present two different means of knowing that make different assumptions about reality.

T'ai Chi Ch'uan

Consider this analogy:  T’ai Chi Ch’uan (T’ai chi) and Krava Maga are two different martial arts.  These disciplines have the common goal of self-defense. 

However, both styles make different assumptions about how one should defend themselves. 

For example, T’ai Chi Ch’uan encourages students to redirect an attackers strength against their opponent and is a passive, yet effective, fighting style.  Krav Maga encourages students to end a fight as quickly as possible by attacking vulnerable body parts and is an aggressive and efficient style.

Krav Maga

Both martial arts have pros and cons. While one may be better suited in a particular context over the other, it would be unreasonable to say that one is inherently better than the other.  They have similar goals but make different assumptions about how to achieve these goals.

Likewise, both religion and science represent different processes in the distillation of knowledge. While they are not completely incompatible, it is unnecessary to pit them against each other.  They make different etymological and cosmological assumptions. These assumptions are not based on Truth, but are necessary for any progress to be made.

To illustrate, science requires the assumption of a measurable and material universe with consistent laws. This is a lofty assumption and is often rejected by theoretical and quantum physicists, among other scholars.  Science can only study what is empirically falsifiable.  Science can make no statement for or against the transcendent or the divine which do not exist materially.

On the contrary, most religions operate on the assumption that humans can somehow know and interact with a transcendent principle of reality.  Both science and religion adequately describe the world around but make different assumptions.  To say that one is inherently better than the other is to say that T’ai Chi Ch’uan is better than Krav Maga.

On psychologizing Deity and misinterpreting Jung. (Where is my mind?)

Carl Jung’s ideas are a topic for discussion in the world of Paganism.  When the historical basis for hard polytheism was challenged in the 1960’s, believers latched onto Jung’s ideas of archetypes to legitimize their faith.  The lasting implication is a rift in  Neopagan philosophy.

Yoda:  Archetype?  Thought-form?  Expression of the unknowable?  Psychic entity?

So who’s right?  Do deity actually exist or are they merely a part of our personal or collective unconscious?  If I were to conduct a poll of 100 Neopagans, I imagine that approximately half would advocate hard polytheism, which is to say Deity actually exist outside the human mind.  The other half would argue that deity are symbolic, archetypal, or are only real within the mind. 

This appears huge divergence in ideology.  Let’s consider a metaphor to show that this situation is more likely complex than truly dichotomous. 

How do I know that I am at my desk typing this post?  Well in my mind, I have a model of both my desk and myself.  I can only know an event through my own internal model of the event.

Here the situation becomes more complex.  In this mental model, my psychic representation also has a mind—it’s mind’ception, a mind within a mind. 

Artist Credit:  Amanda Saker

This paradox raises further questions.  Is my mind in the universe? Or is the universe in my mind?   The most correct answer is probably: both.  Robert Anton Wilson argues that the true nature of the universe is both transcendent and immanent.  It is simultaneously internal and external.  My mind is in the universe and the universe, as I know it, is in my mind.


Following this reasoning, psychological entities are equally as “real” as the material entities that we assume exist externally but are only know through internal perception. This is what Jung means in saying “What most overlook or seem unable to understand is the fact that I regard the psyche as real.” (Collected Works, P. 751.)

To the skeptics who say “that it’s all in your head.” You’re right. My gods and goddesses exist in my head— but so does the rest of the universe. Deity are just as real as anything else in the mind… which is everything.

In this way, Yoda is a real and fictional entity. He's a real, fictional entity. He's a mental representation just like your mom, the president, or you.