The Science-Religion Dichotomy – NOT


I write this as a career scientist of no particular religion who has had an undeniably spiritual personal experience—a peak experience as defined by Abraham Maslow—and as a philosopher.  I do not ask that you believe me (although it is certainly the truth).  I ask only that you read on because the subject is interesting.

The rapid advance of science in recent years has brought with it an increase in secularism and, not surprisingly, atheism.  However, it should be noted that while denouncing spirituality, atheism itself bears all the scripts of a religion (faith, belief, conviction, confidence, trust, reliance, devotion, dogma, doctrine).  Indeed, it makes for an extremely demanding one in that it’s entirely negative and has no particular guiding light other than the passion of those who would sponsor it.

The atheist presupposes (simplistically) that science deals in


ETHICS and SPIRITUALITY:  Is religion necessary?


We know there’s a Universe because we’re indelibly written into it.  But where did it come from?  What caused it?  There had to be a cause for there to be the Universe (effect) that gives us life.  What could it be?

“The stuff of religious philosophy…(is) no more or less than assigning (whatever heralded) the universe to some power, potential or what-have-you that precedes and pervades our world.  This singularity is universally continuous from mankind’s point of view–a given.  It was, is, and as far as we can know, will be—ageless, dateless, timeless, eternal, immortal, all-being and unproveable.

What does this mean?  And how do we handle it (because we really can’t continue to ignore it)?  Early religions handled it by assigning this dynamis to a being they called



Young Earthers claim that the earth (the entire universe, in fact) is only about 6000 years old, a claim made on the strength of the Bible—specifically, the Book of Genesis.   This of course conflicts with massive geologic (and other) evidence showing the earth to be hundreds of millions of years old (with the universe at about 13.7 BILLION years).

Young earthers cite creation of the earth (and universe) on the basis of the account as recorded in Genesis according to which the earth was created in seven days, days as we know them today.  They do not believe that their seven ‘days’ may have been much longer periods of time as measured by another criterion.  They further explain the geologic record as observed in the earth’s lithosphere as being the record since Noah’s flood.

The first inconsistency in the Young Earth theory



Part  I  of this article told of a peak experience I had about twenty years ago and something of what I’ve come to know from it.  It concluded with a brief narrative on the consciousness that underlies the Universe, and how we are integrated with it.  Part  II  concludes the article with something of what I’ve learned from it personally.  It was a true enlightenment and is presented here for your consideration.  What you do with it is up to you…

The Big Bang theory about the beginnings of our universe satisfies most of the scientific community because: 1) it makes sense; and 2) vital parts of it can be proven. Basically it postulates that the universe began about 13.7-billion years ago from a singularity—a dimensionless point—whereby mass (no