July 29, 2007

Science vs Religion

Posted at 9:00 am by Richard and tagged arthur-c-clark, church, conflict, interpretation, myth, religion, science, technology, war. Popularity: 20% [?]

What is with the resurrected war between science and religion?

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?

Further Reading:

• The Myth of Conflict
• Ferngren, Gary (2002) Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction

Permalink 17 Comments Share This

July 25, 2007

Praise The Lord For All The Cash I’ve Got

Posted at 10:23 pm by Richard and tagged australia, bible, christianity, church, evil, genesis, hillsong, humour, money, sin, the-chaser, video, youtube. Popularity: 28% [?]

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!”

VIDEO: Hill$ong

Oh, and if you liked that, you might also like this:

VIDEO: What Have We Learned From History?

Permalink 3 Comments Share This

July 12, 2007

Religion vs Christianity

Posted at 2:33 pm by Richard and tagged atheism, belief, christianity, church, definitions, evangelism, religion. Popularity: 14% [?]

Here’s a concept I hadn’t come across before - an irreligious Christian. The post at DeConversion centres around the quote from an apparently irreligious Christian:

“Christianity is not about a religion… Christianity is about a relationship…” I even recall myself saying, on probably more than one occasion, “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian.”

While “Thinking Ape” claims this person is being dishonest about their religion, I think it is (at least in principle) possible to distinguish between the two. Religion, according to one definition is “an institution to express belief in a divine power”¹. By this definition, perhaps “the church” and “religion” would be synonymous. My major gripe with religion has always been the institution associated along with it - sure, the beliefs are almost certainly delusional as well, but the beliefs alone (in my view) don’t cause any harm. It’s for this same reason that I disagree with organised atheist evangelism.

For me, the first step away from religion (although I was never raised in a particularly religious family) was when I rejected organised religion. I was inclined to think that, while the beliefs may² have been true, the institutionalisation and control from the Church was problematic. An irreligious Christian would, I imagine, reject the various denominations of Christian churches, like I did. They would also not necessarily accept the interpretations of any one denomination, and would (hopefully) be more open to semi-rational thought.

I say, good on them. Sure, it’s not ideal, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

Link: I’m not religious, I’m Christian (DeConversion)

1. Princeton WordNet, Religion [↩]
2. I never did, and still don’t “believe” [↩]

Permalink 5 Comments Share This