Science, Religion, and Art

A post that won't be as good as my last one. Sorry guys.

 

I used to be obssessed with reason. There was a reason for everything, a clear process to do anything, and an inability to explain nothing. Oh sure, there were things that I didn't understand, that the world didn't yet understand, but the operant word here was yet--given enough time, everything would stand up to the scrutiny of reason. Understandably, I was militantly atheist. I rejected religion on face as running completely contrary to the heart of science--by believing something that could not be tested through scientific scrutiny, I flew in the face of the fundamental pillar of science: falsifiability. Science and religion are incompatible, I proudly told myself (and anybody else who'd listen); they're based on completely divergent fundamental beliefs.

It's hard for me to say whether I still think that way. Nothing's really changed in the way science is done to make me change my views, and I certainly don't know enough about religion to make an informed change of heart based on current religious developments. I did realize, though, that there's more at work here--more than science vs. religion, faith vs. reason.

For instance, where does art come in here? I realize that art straddles this divide, and can fight strongly for either side of this battle--indeed, I haven't yet written about this, but I believe that the creative design solutions often used by people to solve scientific problems are great examples of art. One of art's most powerful characteristics, for me, is the universal appeal of great art--there's something that connects the human fiber of us all, some sort of universal human experience that allows people of all different backgrounds to appreciate art on some level.

Yet this idea of a universal human experience presents many of the same problems that the idea of god does, in terms of conflicts with science's basic pillars. How do we know that we are all connected just on basis of being human? We don't. Where's the factual proof? There is none. Is this a falsifiable claim? Well, I certainly can't think of how we could falsify it--I'm not sure I'd be satisfied with a psychological explanation. And yet, this is at the heart of what makes art great and powerful. We can identify with the works, feel the emotions, understand the art--maybe not in the same way, but certainly with the same degree of impact.

I used to blame religion for much of the suffering around the world. I pointed to historical examples of bloodshed driven by religion--clearly, in a world of atheism, in a world of facts and reason, we wouldn't have all this. But now I realize: just as much as religion has been responsible for terrible events in history, so too has it been responsible for great ones. If anything, it's emphatic of the power of people united in belief, and not the good or bad that can come of it.

I continue to maintain that the best scientists--indeed, and the best economists, lawyers, doctors, and politicians, the best gamers and athletes, and probably tons of other types of people I'm missing here, but this post is about science--are also artists. They need to be, in order to be the best: they encounter in their work challenges and problems that only human ingenuity can solve, and it takes creativity and artistic talent to do so. Perhaps that's the real takeaway here: we all need a bit of everything. It takes a creative mind to be a great scientist, and perhaps--be it faith in god, gods, or simply faith in humanity--it takes a little faith too.