science AND religion. How novel
A friend of mine sent this article in the NY Times(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25books.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=46a4047f0ae196fc&ex=1154491200&emc=eta1)
along to me about three scientists who've authored books, saying that faith and reason, science and belief in God can co-exist.
I have to say I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I see and hear that there are scientists, professors and other intellectual elite who advocate this sort of cooperation and that science and religion don't have to negate each other. And when I say warm and fuzzy I'm seriously not trying to be sarcastic. I really do get a warm glow. While I haven't read these books, I've added them to my ever-growing list of books I need to get to.
But the article gives us a bit of a picture of why these scientists believe the two can co-exist as well as some interesting tid-bits from two opponents to the idea of science/religion cooperating (Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins - two staunch evolutionists and believers that becoming an atheist is akin to bravery. I wished the author would have added comments from some religious folk who also don't buy the idea that science and religion can mix, just to make it more balanced and to show that there is this type of mentality on both sides of the science v. religion debate.)
While I'm not so sure bravery is involved in atheism, Dennett and Dawkins are atheists themselves and have seemed pretty adamant on challenging religion, even calling it a disease.
For the record, Drs. Dennett and Dawkins, I'm not quite sure that insulting people is the way to sway the religious masses away from their beliefs.
At the same time, I get pretty disgusted with religious folks who use science when it suits them and dismiss it when it doesn't. It's also rather irritating when the religious dismiss science, reason and even thinking out of hand for the old stand by excuse of "I just have my faith. You just gotta believe."
In my estimation, that is pure laziness and really doesn't win any converts - at least potential converts who have more analytical minds.
One of the scientists admit she would love to talk about science in church and with the faithful, but most of the religious aren't intellectually prepared for such conversations. That is just sad, not to mention embarrassing.
And while I do tend to agree with the author's last paragraph:
"This is where the scientific method comes in. If scientists are prepared to state their hypotheses, describe how they tested them, lay out their data, explain how they analyze their data and the conclusions they draw from their analyses — then it should not matter if they pray to Zeus, Jehovah, the Tooth Fairy, or nobody.
Their work will speak for itself."
I would also mention, though, in conjunction that depending on your worldview, whether theistic, pantheistic or atheistic, you're going to look at the results and interpret those results through those lenses. I would say very, very few of us are so completely objective that we can look at evidences without the hue of the glasses we wear coloring what we see. So, I think it's a bit optimistic to say, "can't we just all get along," but I do think there must be more dialogue and less name-calling from both sides if for no other reason than getting down to the truth. Because, really, if Christ is who he said he is then why is science so taboo in some religious circles? If God is truth, then isn't all that is true from God? Besides, don't we all want to follow the truth no matter where it leads? Who wants to follow a lie or delusion - scientific or religious?
along to me about three scientists who've authored books, saying that faith and reason, science and belief in God can co-exist.
I have to say I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I see and hear that there are scientists, professors and other intellectual elite who advocate this sort of cooperation and that science and religion don't have to negate each other. And when I say warm and fuzzy I'm seriously not trying to be sarcastic. I really do get a warm glow. While I haven't read these books, I've added them to my ever-growing list of books I need to get to.
But the article gives us a bit of a picture of why these scientists believe the two can co-exist as well as some interesting tid-bits from two opponents to the idea of science/religion cooperating (Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins - two staunch evolutionists and believers that becoming an atheist is akin to bravery. I wished the author would have added comments from some religious folk who also don't buy the idea that science and religion can mix, just to make it more balanced and to show that there is this type of mentality on both sides of the science v. religion debate.)
While I'm not so sure bravery is involved in atheism, Dennett and Dawkins are atheists themselves and have seemed pretty adamant on challenging religion, even calling it a disease.
For the record, Drs. Dennett and Dawkins, I'm not quite sure that insulting people is the way to sway the religious masses away from their beliefs.
At the same time, I get pretty disgusted with religious folks who use science when it suits them and dismiss it when it doesn't. It's also rather irritating when the religious dismiss science, reason and even thinking out of hand for the old stand by excuse of "I just have my faith. You just gotta believe."
In my estimation, that is pure laziness and really doesn't win any converts - at least potential converts who have more analytical minds.
One of the scientists admit she would love to talk about science in church and with the faithful, but most of the religious aren't intellectually prepared for such conversations. That is just sad, not to mention embarrassing.
And while I do tend to agree with the author's last paragraph:
"This is where the scientific method comes in. If scientists are prepared to state their hypotheses, describe how they tested them, lay out their data, explain how they analyze their data and the conclusions they draw from their analyses — then it should not matter if they pray to Zeus, Jehovah, the Tooth Fairy, or nobody.
Their work will speak for itself."
I would also mention, though, in conjunction that depending on your worldview, whether theistic, pantheistic or atheistic, you're going to look at the results and interpret those results through those lenses. I would say very, very few of us are so completely objective that we can look at evidences without the hue of the glasses we wear coloring what we see. So, I think it's a bit optimistic to say, "can't we just all get along," but I do think there must be more dialogue and less name-calling from both sides if for no other reason than getting down to the truth. Because, really, if Christ is who he said he is then why is science so taboo in some religious circles? If God is truth, then isn't all that is true from God? Besides, don't we all want to follow the truth no matter where it leads? Who wants to follow a lie or delusion - scientific or religious?
posted by Jeno at
3:38 PM
3 Comments:
Socrates had a famous saying: "The unexamined life is not worth living." I think we could paraphrase that a bit and say that surely, unexaminied beliefs are not worth believing!
I agree with your analysis that it is sad and embarrassing that the Christian scientist can't share science and religion in the church because most believers aren't intellectually prepared. The same holds true for many other academic disciplines such as philosophy and even theology, of all things!
Christianity is not simply an intellectual exercise, to be sure. But it is so much more than "mere belief." I hope that dialogue between science and religion continues. The Scriptures proclaim in Psalm 19 that the heavens are declaring the glory of God. There are things that we can know about God by observing the universe, and science can help us do that.
By
Anonymous, at 8:14 PM
I'm not gettin' why my comments are not reaching you. Do you know who this is? Oh, by the way, the man 'Darwin' plays a major role in this, don't you think?
By
Anonymous, at 1:28 PM
Hi Poppy. Yes, I'm getting your comments. I do think Darwinism has played a role in this. As one prominent atheist has said, "Darwinism has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
By
Jeno, at 2:02 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home