Yes, people hide behind religion because they are worried about what will happen to them when they die if there is no God. In the same way, people hide behind science because they are worried about what will happen to them when they die if there is a God (i.e. to face consequences for one's actions in life).
I don't agree. I followed science and was an 'cynic' for a period of my life, but I have never thought of it as 'hiding'. The path of science is a search for the truth. It's just a bit one sided that's all.
The whole idea of being an atheist/scientist/reductionist is that you only believe what is proved. If God is not proved, then there is literally no fear of God. How can you fear something you don't believe in. It's like children watching TV. They are easily frightened because they believe what is being shown to be real, but we know better. We know it's fake, and when we realise that, the feal disappears.
The problem for atheists etc is the fear of the unknown, not God. God is a known quantity which has been examined and found wanting in too many departments to be taken seriously by atheists etc. The unknown is what brings a chill down one's spine.
You see, reality is infinite. Infinite sizes, distances, speeds, times, quantities etc. The scientists approach is empirical, and as such, he is not able to comprehend the true nature of things. Back when the Greek mathematicians were all the rage, they left out 0 and infinity, because it didn't fit in with their perfect rational world. But now, mathematicians have to battle with impossible concepts and solve unsolvable equations. I was reading a New Scientist or Scientific American magazine which had an article on numbers bigger than infinity. It said that the chief mathematician who spear-headed the project ended up having a nervous breakdown. You'll notice that anyone who deals with the absolute, with the...is it right brain?... too much, like accountants and computer geeks have a noticable maladaption to the world, like they're living in 2 dimensions when the rest of us are in 3.
I'm babbling, next topic...
A reductionist point of view would see a human being perhaps as either just a bunch of cells, or else nothing more than an organised collection of atoms.
Although technically correct, it absotely refuses to address issues of consciousness - excepting by some vague dismissal that our own thoughts and ideas are nothing more than illusionary processes.
The problem is the fact there is no argument involved in this dismissal, other than that our thoughts and ideas cannot be directly quantified (ie, measured in amount), therefore they cannot be addressed or described in a theoretical manner.
You know, the Buddhist approach is that of a reductionist.
What we know is like from 20-30 on a number line. The number line is infinite. The reductionist adds to the number line: 31,19,32,18, but he won't accept 40 until he has 39. This is fine. Perfectly logical and nothing wrong with it. Because really, what is the point of 40, if it is not connected to the other numbers that we already know. What's the point of God if it cannot be explained by the accepted numbers we use from day to day, ie science. What's the point of teaching a 6 year old calculus. Waste of time.
The limitation is not accepting that there is the possibility of 40 existing, that God exists, that calculus makes sense.
The Buddha analysed things in the reductionist way, but he didn't limit himself to what is observed. In India the trend was to examine the observer. This is more important. We are the observer, and so our efforts should be around understanding ourselves. Only that way, we can be sure of things and be happy.
If you ask a scientist why they do what they do, they'd probably say, 'Cause I'm good at it and it makes me happy.' The reason they continue in their endeavour, whether it is futile or not, is to be happy. I mean, who really cares what the hell is going on. We just want to be happy right? So we dive into different areas of investigation. The scientist thinks knowing about the material world is important. The western psychologist thinks knowing about thought processes is important. The philosopher thinks knowing about the way principles work, since principles are the forces of the material world. They are in fact, more definite than the materials themselves and they apply not only to materials. The religious man, like primitive man (no offense intended), sees things that are out of one's explanation, and resorts to 'divine inspiration' in an attempt to satisfy the burning curiosity and constant fear. They all are trying to fill a gap with understanding through whichever channel it may be. They are all trying in vain, because as long as they do not address the root of the problem, they will not succeed in filling the bottomless pit with the results of their explanations (which are impossible to prove absolutely.)
The problem is the bottomless pit in the first place. It is ignorance. It is defining and dividing things. It is the cause of all our suffering.
The Buddha used the reductionist approach to arrive at the understanding of 'sunyata', which is very roughly translated as relativity and infinity.
He looked up and saw no end to his sight. He listened forward and found no end to his hearing. We know of infinity because we know of finity.
In short, the reductionist point of view is fine, and it is required in everyday life, but one should never think that this is all. Always remember that there are things we don't know. And also, soften your approach to reductionism, because then you CAN accept that there are things that you don't know. If you make your life about knowing s**t, then you'll find it harder and harder to accept that there are things you don't know, which is obvious. Its the scientist/psychologist/philosophy/religioso who are afronted most when you criticise their insights. An artist can much easilier admit defeat.
