Reliscience

Science originated from human curiosity. Gradually, the methods of observation developed to such an extent that their structures were able to provide a view of reality much less related to the personality of the observer than anything else.

It would not be much of an exaggeration that with scientific method man has been able to stand out of himself to observe his own workings in the world.

Science is striving to get information about the material, measurable world as impersonal and impartial as possible.

Art, again, is an expression of the human experience. True, it can be regarded as exploration of the mind and the soul of man. True, it creates objects that can be observed and experienced by other people who might or might not “understand” it or share the experience of the artist.
Then again it might not. Both the creation of the piece of art and the way it is experienced is highly subjective and focuses on depicting the ways our “operating system” uses symbols to convey different states of emotion.

Art is striving to share information and about the phenomenological, subjective world and cause emotional and highly personal experiences in its audience.

Here I must add that the feelings of a scientist making a discovery that allows him to project his inner harmony on measurable reality without a discord can be quite similar to those of an artist finding the perfect blue for the morning sky or the perfect line that pulls “it all” together.

Art and science are both about harmony and aesthetic experience but methods and apparent goals are vastly different.

Religion can be serving the need for harmony as well. A French theologist said that the only way to join religion to science is the love of God. This can be interpreted that religion has been constructed to make up answers where answers cannot be found with art or science.
Our human mind refuses to believe in the “here” or the “now”. Rather, it goes about creating history and making up future with logic that has evolved for thriving in a flock of monkeys in the African plains. If something happens, there is something with a will making it happen. If something is, there has to be somebody that created it. Such an idea that things just might happen because the circumstances allowed it to is alien to our thinking. We need reasons; we need active subjects with a will to make sense of the world.

Our mind is a flock-animal mind though upon and slightly outside of it we have developed a sort of a rational segment capable of introspection.

Flock animals do as they see the next one doing. They follow their congenital subroutines in a blind fashion. With a little thinking one can find hundreds of examples of human primate flock animal behaviour. Unfortunately, we can explain it to ourselves only by assigning it to a causative factor outside of ourselves. Instead of saying: “Hey, it is my animal operating system running wild”, we say we have been addressed by God or possessed by Devil.

So basically what we need religion for is to explain away things we do not understand because of lack of knowledge, honesty or courage. We need it to assign causative factors to the awesome feelings our consciousness weaves together from external sensory material and electrochemical subroutines programmed by eons of evolution into our operating system.

We need religion to bridge the cap we observe between our animal and our rational self.

Which really does not need to exist at all once we accept our own animalism and see ourselves not as a spirit in a body but as a body making the spirit. Not being or existing but happening.

Much like the rainbow.