I must admit, I used to think that science and religion were natural enemies. How can something that relies on faith not be in direct opposition to a practice which specifically relies on reason and evidence? The thing is, it wasn’t always like that, and to some it still isn’t. Of course, there are those who choose to create conflict, but conflict isn’t necessary. Historically, science grew from the church. The first scientists were clergy, and scientific research was sponsored by the church. The church wanted to understand God’s world, and science was one of the ways they tried to do that.
Before I really began looking into things myself, I thought that the only rational scientific view could be that God (as always, I use the term very loosely) does not exist. But there is so much magic in the universe that we can’t help but feel insignificant in it. Even if the universe does exist due to a cosmic fluke, that’s still pretty darn amazing and if we could ever truly understand that, I think that would be on par with a religious experience.
Arthur C. Clark’s famous quote “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” seems to be true not only of technology as we know it, but also the natural world around us, which possibly explains why many seem to believe the only option is that this world was created by a “sufficiently advanced being”. As our science advances, we discover more and more things that seem like magic - we continually discover new exciting things that seem completely unreal and magical. The quantum world, for example - even the greatest scientific minds still can’t fully grasp what happens in our world on a quantum level. As time goes on, our science progresses, and we understand these things differently, but that doesn’t make them any less amazing. While I accept that both science and spirituality/religion have limits to what they can explain, they both seem to be striving to understand this same magic.
Can’t science be a path to God? If God exists in all things (as is often claimed), then by understanding the world around us through science, we could begin to understand God. Sure, the God we might find wouldn’t be Yahweh, Allah or Jesus - but some parts of the bible have to be interpreted as metaphor, right?
Wow! There’s been a LOT of traffic on my site the last couple of days, mostly thanks to StumbleUpon. All that traffic has also pushed my blog up to number one (for now) at a listing of top religion blogs.
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who’s visited, commented, subscribed, and most importantly shared my posts on social networking sites. Remember, there’s a “share” link at the bottom of every post to make this part really easy… (*hint, hint*).
I saw this clip on TV tonight (The Chaser, an Australian comedy show, are playing repeats at the moment), and I thought it was funny. If you haven’t heard of these guys, I suggest you check out their show (currently taking a break) - you can download it at the ABC website.
Let me hear you say “I will empty the contents of my wallet into that little collection plate when it comes around…. hallelujah!”
Update: a reply! Supposedly, my comments were blocked by a rule which removes posts with more than two links. Given both my comments1 only had one link, this seems unlikely.
Just to being with, I’ll just say that in general, I don’t agree with Atheistic evangelism. I get really pissed off when Christians (I only single them out because no one else has ever tried to convert me, but I’m sure they’re not the only evangelists) don’t understand that I have no interest in joining their religion (or any other, for that matter). It is for exactly that reason that I disagree with atheists doing exactly the same thing. I don’t care if we’re right - I’ll happily debate with someone, and explain my position, but I’m not arrogant enough to think that everyone else should necessarily share my views. Before you say “why are you giving these religious people so much respect?” (as I’m sure many Dawkinians might), I would treat peoples political beliefs or choice of ice cream flavours in exactly the same way. “You don’t like rocky road? But what could possibly be better than the mix of smooth sticky marshmallow with crunchy nuts?” … “You don’t like nuts? Well ok, then…”.
I’ve had three discussions/arguments with various Christians/creationists recently2, two of which have been quite interesting, and possibly even productive.
That said, blatantly stupid comments still draw my ire - fine - be religious, believe in a personal God. I’ll disagree with you, but it’s still your right. Claiming that “we’re working on it” is not a better answer than “goddidit”, and you’ll get my argumentative juices flowing. Further trying to claim a law professor is somehow an expert in evolutionary biology, and even further that biology is not a natural science is beyond me.
I can’t imagine (note: sarcasm) why the Gay Conservative didn’t post my most recent comment3:
Secondly, if you want to quote someone reputable about evolutionary biology, an ex-Berkley law professor4 is not my idea of a credible source… Find me a reputable biologist (or even a reputable scientist in a related field), and I might take more notice…
Did I have a point? Was I too argumentative? Feel free to read through the comments on Gay Conservative’s post, and see if anyone else can get their comments published.
Apologies if the CoComment site doesn’t display the comments properly, but this is the only method I can find for a permalink [↩]
One in the comments of my post “Misquoting Jesus“, one on Facebook, and the other one I’m discussing here. [↩]
After discussing Misquoting Jesus recently, I thought it was about time I talked about another book that’s had a profound impact on my views - “Conversations with God”. A 3-part (now, with many more1 ) work in which the author, Neale Donald Walsch, claims to be having an actual written dialogue with God.
“I was unhappy … and my life was feeling like a failure on all levels … This time, rather than another letter to another person I imagined to be vicimizing me, I thought I’d go straight to the source; … I decided to write a letter to God.”2
… and, God replies. The book follows with a written dialogue between Walsch and God, talking about prayer, love, divine inspiration and the nature of the bible, and all sorts of potentially controversial topics.
Now, if you haven’t already read these books, you’re probably thinking exactly what I thought when a friend first told me about them - “what kind of nut-job publishes a book claiming he actually had a conversation with God? He’s either nuts, or full of c#@p”. A perfectly valid position to take, but as you read further, you start to understand that it doesn’t matter if Walsch is actually having a conversation with God, if he’s a con artist, or even if he’s nuts - what matters is the book contains some very valid insights.
If God truly did inspire the bible, then why those people? Many of them “never met or saw Jesus in their lives, they lived many years after Jesus left the Earth”3. Some might suggest that the bible as we know it cannot be the word of God unless each of these writers, scribes, translators, etc. were all divinely inspired, which further complicates the issue. Walsch (or, God) suggests the answer to this problem is that the bible is not the only divinely inspired text - “everything in life is holy”4, and God’s inspiration is available to anyone who “listens”:
“Listen to your feelings. Listen to your Highest Thoughts. Listen to your experience. Whenever any of these differ from what you’ve been told by your teachers, or read in your books, forget the words. Words are the least reliable purveyor of Truth.”5
The God portrayed in “Conversations with God” is exactly the kind of higher power I could imagine being behind all the world’s religions. There’s no way any one religion has got it perfectly right, because each rely on the words that have been passed down through generations, which have been translated, changed and misinterpreted. Each “divinely inspired” text may have come from people who were more in touch with this “God”, and therefore came closer to God’s true message, but each writer had their own human flaws as well, and thus no text is perfect. In the later books, he hints at the idea that by being “in touch” with God, one is really in touch with oneself - God is not only “in” each of us, but we are (collectively) God.
The book certainly solves some of the issues with traditional religion, but possibly so much so that it’s incompatible with traditional religions (which is probably a good thing!). I mentioned in my previous post “Soft Atheist, Hard Agnostic”, that I am a “soft” agnostic when it comes to “spiritual” gods or other non-interfering higher powers. Despite the personal connection Walsch claims to have with this god, to me his ideas seem very close to these types of “gods”
The books are certainly a departure from the seemingly popular non-fiction books on religion and atheism today, but if you haven’t read anything like this before, it’s not a bad place to start.
While I happily bought the first three books, and I honestly believe they were written with good intentions, I can’t help but feel the multitudes of subsequent books are just an attempt to “cash in” on a franchise, and hence, I haven’t bought or read any of them. [↩]
I must admit, I used to think that science and religion were natural enemies. How can something that relies on faith not be in direct opposition to a practice which specifically relies on reason and evidence? The thing is, it wasn’t always like that, and to some it still isn’t. Of course, there are those who choose to create conflict, but conflict isn’t necessary. Historically, science grew from the church. The first scientists were clergy, and scientific research was sponsored by the church. The church wanted to understand God’s world, and science was one of the ways they tried to do that.
Arthur C. Clark’s famous quote “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” seems to be true not only of technology as we know it, but also the natural world around us, which possibly explains why many seem to believe the only option is that this world was created by a “sufficiently advanced being”. As our science advances, we discover more and more things that seem like magic - we continually discover new exciting things that seem completely unreal and magical. The quantum world, for example - even the greatest scientific minds still can’t fully grasp what happens in our world on a quantum level. As time goes on, our science progresses, and we understand these things differently, but that doesn’t make them any less amazing. While I accept that both science and spirituality/religion have limits to what they can explain, they both seem to be striving to understand this same magic.
Posts
