Science and religion in face of world
When a scientist discovers some important phenomenon, principle or truth about the laws of nature, he can count not only on the full recognition of his environment, but also on a positive reaction from his competitors. This is especially the case when the results of his research are confirmed by other scientists. Most often, everyone is happy about it.
Unfortunately, in the field of religion, the situation is quite different. In a world where Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Judaists mostly dominate, any innovation creates hostility. For example, the hierarchs of Judaism fought against the prophets who discovered certain secrets of the spiritual world and tried to pass them on to people. It was the same with Jesus Christ, who taught the Heavenly Father and explained the role of the Son of God in the salvation of the world. Muslims also persecuted their own clergy who wanted to adapt their understanding of the Qur'an to the activities of the next generations after Muhammad. In the centuries that followed, Christian hierarchs persecuted many thinkers who understood Jesus' teachings and personality differently. Those who dared to create a new understanding of the Old and New Testaments were liquidated. They were burned at the stake of scientists who presented scientific discoveries about new phenomena in the universe. Doctors who developed new methods of treating sick people were also persecuted. Persecution also affected clergymen who disagreed with the hierarchy. They were called dissenters, heretics, and enemies of the church. Most actions leading to the restoration of Christian values or their compliance with the development of civilization were considered schism or heresy. It can be seen that the opposite was done to what was done in the case of the development of science. It is therefore worth considering why this was the case.
With a simple understanding of these facts, one can easily conclude that the hierarchs of various religions place power over people and standing in their own position over the welfare of their faithful. Therefore, they are not interested in the fact that all mankind makes a tremendous effort to find better solutions to its daily affairs. The human will to improve one's own existence is therefore the "salt in the eye" of the religious hierarchs who, throughout human history, have fought against those who dared to have a different opinion from theirs.
For a deeper understanding of human history, it is worth following an example from the teachings of Jesus Christ first. He portrayed Satan as the main agent of evil in the world. "The God of this world," as the Son of God often called Satan, controls knowledge of himself so effectively that even the greatest scribes or stout theological heads have not been able to understand the effectiveness of his power and his position towards mankind. Rather, they tried to eliminate those who were discovering his true role.
It should be added here that even in the twentieth century, clergymen of the greatest denominations, when confronted with people of science, often behaved inappropriately towards them. They were unable to get in touch with those who openly and sincerely wanted to help people understand the true meaning of their lives. The clergy only considered the principles of their own doctrines, forgetting that a dogmatic attitude towards people almost always leads to persecution for innovative views.
In the confrontation between science and religion, the question arises as to which God is meant. Is it about Heavenly Father who is in the so-called Heaven beyond the world, or about the real "god of this world"? Are the clergy of major religions so influenced by Satan as to do his will? Have they been unable for centuries to go beyond the circle of their dogmatic findings straight from antiquity? Do they realize that by their attitude they block the spiritual development of mankind and prevent the salvation of the world? Did the bug of power of power eliminate in them the love for people that Christ spoke about?
According to essenceism, the main difference between religious leaders and scientists lies in the assessment of the functioning of humanity and responsibility for the state of our world. The clergy of great religions most often proclaim that their God watches over everything, observes what people do, and over time will solve all our problems in the form of the end of the world or the final judgment. Therefore, they do not have to worry about the condition of humanity, because their god knows best what is good and what is bad for us. Such an attitude removes from people of faith responsibility for the development of civilization. It largely contradicts the efforts of scientists to improve the living conditions on Earth. From this it can be seen that science and its participation proclaim the opposite of those who wait for God's action. People of science know well that no one for mankind will solve the problems of civilization. It is them, and in fact each of us should participate in shaping good conditions for life on Earth, and especially in bringing the world to a state that brings happiness to every human being. Unfortunately, without the participation of people of faith, this probably cannot be achieved.
The disease of religious irresponsibility has a much wider dimension. It is about taking full part in the salvation of the world from evil. The failure of religion in this mission has a particularly negative effect on the condition of humanity. Therefore, essenceism proposes to people of faith to adopt a scientific point of view of the world. This must be done because, by combining scientific and religious action, both parties can understand what kind of God we have in the Person of the Creator. To foster understanding between science and religion, essenceism proposes a new understanding of the Creator of the universe. It is about a non-dogmatic Creator in combination with the state of His cut off from us due to the evil.
For science, there are three important problems to be solved that it has been struggling with for thousands of years. It is about the problem of the creation of the universe, the phenomenon of the appearance in life and the existence of man in the natural environment. These three issues fall within the scope of the proposal for a solution to the problems of humanity discussed in essenceism. It results from the analysis of the work done by the Original Being.
Essenceism tries to reconcile religion and science, or at least bring the two areas of life closer together. In the ongoing discussion between the two areas of life, there are still negative phenomena concerning the very principle of the functioning of dialogue. First of all, it is still not very present in social life. Individual denominations or churches identify themselves with the so-called Will of God, thus assuming that they represent the truth revealed by Him. This immediately closes the way for further discussion not only with science but also with other faiths. It is true that such "representing" God guarantees them to remain in their position, although it does not lead to the solution of any problems of humanity, even those that they deal with themselves, for example, the problem of eliminating evil on Earth. Meanwhile, science does not have to make such assumptions. She can openly deal with everything that is of interest to her, without any artificial barriers. It can also combine the intellectual efforts of all mankind, stopping only at the barrier of the lack of appropriate research methods and tools. Meanwhile, essenceism shows that behind this barrier, religion may still operate, complementing its competitor's efforts to learn the "spiritual" truth about the universe. To avoid conflicts with religion, science should make it clear that it must have an absolutely free hand in its research. Science urges it not to be disturbed by religion and not to become entrenched in defensive positions to defend its dogmas. If God is really powerful and absolute, then there is no need to defend Him, because just as He dealt with the creation of the universe, He will also be able to confirm His work. It exists objectively, so it is enough for religion to present it and science to study it.
It follows that religion has a clear field of action in the study of God's creative work. It can be anywhere where science has no access due to the assumptions it has made. This applies primarily to such a topic as the first cause of the creation of the universe in terms of causality and purposefulness. However, the very mechanism of this phenomenon may already be a field for joint research for both sides without the need to remain in their current positions. In another discussion of the origin of life, religion can confidently express its point of view, as science has not yet solved this problem. For it has become clear that the root aspects of this issue still elude her empirical methods. Thus, the beginning of life on Earth is still behind an inaccessible veil, the existence of which we also notice when examining the source moment of the creation of the universe. So we admire the phenomenon of the inheritance of life and the development of the universe, but we are unable to peer beyond the "curtain" of the Big Bang, inaccessible to scientists. On the other hand, religions are allowed to proclaim that the Creator works from beyond the curtain that separates the space-time of the universe from the state beyond time and space. Moreover, religion does not try to prove its claims by simply proclaiming that it is so and that is the end. It is difficult for science to accept this, but it cannot yet provide any satisfactory answer on this matter. Therefore, essenceism seeks a compromise solution.
The greatest field of interaction between religion and science is man himself. It was he who created these two areas of life. Thus, it can operate on both of these research planes. Therefore, neither side of the discussion should be taken lightly of the latter or eliminate some hypotheses of the emergence of an intelligent man. It is worth assuming that our appearance in the natural world is a fascinating phenomenon for both points of view. You just need to find a common denominator for them. According to essenceism, it is primarily human spirituality, which in the case of faith means our immortal personality, and for science it is a phenomenon of the functioning of the mind in the form of intelligence, will and affection. Another field for discussion is the problem of the existence of evil, which has always been destroying the achievements of both areas that I have discussed. Here religion can especially suggest many of the solutions it has developed. Meanwhile, science can only say that evil exists, while admitting that it cannot eliminate it definitively. Unfortunately, religion also grapples with this problem, often failing, although it aptly defines the methods of how to remove them. Therefore, topics concerning the sense of humanity, the purpose of civilization changes and efforts to eliminate evil should be a common axis of cooperation between these two areas of life.
Finally, it is worth asking yourself a question about the assessment of the achievements of science in relation to the described creative work of God. Let me begin by defining the relationship between God and us, using concepts from the realm of physics. On the one hand, the Original Being - the Creator, who creates the matter, i.e. the physical side of man, from the original energy, that is, the primary energy. On the other hand, a man is His child who uses this matter, at the same time accepting from his Creator the most important gift of life in the form of an eternal spiritual person. Of course, man is not only a consumer of energy and matter. He continues to develop his Father's creative work. The above terms clearly explain the role of the Creator towards people.
I think scientists will explain to us the entire creative mechanism in more detail one day. This is evidenced by a number of scientific discoveries, for example, learning about the so-called the divine particle, i.e. the Higgs boson, as well as various states of interaction. Currently, science is still correcting its views on the origin of the universe. In competition with religion, science is victorious wherever it is possible to physically carry out research and experimentation, and where religion unnecessarily tries to explain the mysteries of the universe through miracles and revelations. Unfortunately, science cannot prove the existence of God since He is beyond the reach of its instruments. On the other hand, it cannot, for the same reasons, prove that God does not exist. These two areas should get closer to each other over time, but let them both develop in parallel and possibly support each other.
So how can science support religion? This support may consist primarily in the fact that in order to understand the natural reality, the necessity of the existence of the so-called observer should be taken into account. This is because such a need arose, for example, when assessing whether infinitely small portions of matter or energy still have a corpuscular or wave structure. Contrary to appearances, it is of fundamental importance. The question is whether they are still energy or already a form of matter, or vice versa. This duality or uncertainty arises because of the use of research tools by man who decides on the structure of these entities. This suggests the necessity of the existence of people who influence not only established physical phenomena, but also participate in the active resolution of the course of various phenomena, especially in microphysics. It may also suggest an answer to the question why man existed and why the Creative Observer of the universe exists from the beginning, i.e. the Original Being.
In addition to quantum physics, the observer may be useful for the anthropic principle that suggests an unusual and precise order in the cosmos. Astrophysicists have noted that only humans are capable of evaluating phenomena on a macro scale. Therefore, man, or the observer in the universe, must himself assess the uniqueness of the structures of all things, which, with a minimal deviation from the stability of laws and principles, would never exist in the cosmos. It means, as it were, the necessity of our existence, i.e. the fact that we are indispensable in the universe. It can be understood that the whole universe is for us, and without our final existence it would not have been possible to exist. For now, this conclusion goes too far. However, the anthropic principle is already being taken into account, as is the Big Bang thesis. Perhaps the Creator is behind both.
In this study, essenceism presupposes the existence of God in all respects perfect, eternal and absolute, that is, independent of anything, neither from time nor from space. In fact, at the present level of human development, a different concept of the Creator does not exist. Only the Perfect, eternal, absolute and absolutely good Original Being has a sense. So you cannot invent someone or something that is more perfect, more eternal or more perfect than Him.