If you're one of those who believe that religion and science have been at war (and I'll explain below why some believe that that "war" is actually a manufactured conflict), you might want to know that peace increasingly seems to be breaking out.
The message that people do not need to choose between many religious beliefs and scientific understanding is not new -- but it has been spreading. Let me provide a series of examples of what has happened on this front in the recent past, and then tell you about an exciting new initiative.
There are many, many other equally impressive examples I could point to, but I think this list makes my case. Instead, let me point to an exciting new initiative that is just getting started. Funded by the Templeton Foundation, this project will bring scientists into congregations with the goal of creating meaningful conversations about faith and science. The Templeton Foundation put up $1 million for this initiative, providing up to $30,000 to each of 37 congregations. You can read more about how some of these projects are playing out within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in a good article written by Susan Barreto. In summary, though, it is fair to say that the individuals involved will explore how it is possible to retain faith while appreciating science -- without compromising either.
This last point is probably the most important, and often the most misunderstood. Thousands upon thousands of religious leaders recognize that scientific principles need not be compromised for faith to be honored. These deeply religious individuals know that they turn to religion for questions of spirituality that science neither asks nor answers. These individuals understand that their religion becomes meaningless if it requires them to discard materialistic explanations for natural phenomena -- exactly the thing that science excels at uncovering.
Yes, there are religious leaders who proclaim that their religious teachings dictate their scientific beliefs. Fundamentalists who adhere dogmatically to a specific interpretation of ancient texts and demand that those bizarre interpretations be taught in science classes fall into this category. Fundamentalists like Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis who unilaterally break science into "operational" science and "historical" science fall into this category. And fundamentalists like those at the Discovery Institute who promote a redefinition of science to include the supernatural also fall into this category. But these people and organizations, as loud and as well funded as they are, do not represent the vast majority of religious individuals. When we conflate these two dramatically different groups and assume they have the same motives and intellectual underpinnings, we're making a huge mistake and missing an opportunity for enhanced understanding.
And, yes, there are some scientists, who do exactly this. They characterize anyone who holds any religious belief in the same fashion as they describe those who are dogmatic in their misunderstanding of science. Some of these scientists believe that science must lead to atheism and, while such a path may have made sense for them, it is demonstrably not the case for large numbers of other scientists and millions of citizens interested in both religion and science.
For those on both ends of the spectrum, the religious fundamentalists who mischaracterize science and the scientists who misconstrue the motives of any who believe in religion, there is value in keeping the war between religion and science alive.
In fact, however, the "war" may never have been more than a manufactured controversy in the first place. As historian Ronald Numbers so evocatively pointed out in his wonderful book "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion," the view that there was longstanding and deep conflict between religion and science was "more propaganda than history."
Whether the war has been real or not, it certainly appears that we are reaching a point of greater understanding of religion and science. And that's a good thing for all of us.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Elaine Howard Ecklund, Ph.D.: Some Atheist Scientists With Children Embrace Religious Traditions
Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
Science needs NOTHING from religion.
NOTHING.
The "religious" people who knew it's all a lie and know science is real, BUT really want to believe they will NOT cease to exist one day...well, they are the only one's who need to mix the two.
The phrases "believe in" and "believe that" characterize two distinct categories of thinking and acting. A ignorant fundie demands to know -- Do you believe in evolution?
Clearly modern evolutionary theory is not a something to be believed in. The question itself imposes a way of thinking completely at odds with the subject it purports to inquire about.
"Believe in" bows to a faith-based way of thinking. "Belief in" means "to trust" -- as "in God we trust." ‘Trust’ evokes relying on (or having to rely on) some person or institution accepted as trustworthy -- an authority figure.
For example Pope Benedict XVI as chief god-proxy of the RC Church is claimed by millions to be an infallible authority on matters of faith and morals.
• However, "believe that" immediately asks for reasons and facts -- Why believe that the pope is infallible in his moral pronouncements? What facts and reasoning support that claim?
An atheist will draw logical conclusions about alleged authority figures like Benedict. For the atheist, the reasoning is simple -- no god exists; so, there can be no knowledge about "him".
There is nothing for the pope to be authoritative about. At the same time, denying his spiritual and moral authority also nullifies any claim to secular power based on religious ideology. Kiss the donation money good-bye.
No wonder atheists are hated -- they would put a lot of powerful people in unemployment lines.
the anti_supernaturalist
Religious people who understand science understand the greatness of their god. My mother (a very devout liberal well educated Muslim) was awed by her understanding of science and would thank her god for creating such a wonderful universe.
I'm not an atheist because I was trained as a scientist but because the religious books I read (Bible and Koran) were self contradictory and immoral.
Do you think the Bible should not believe in you because you are equally immoral according to its moral code?
Wow....simple, simple, simple. What a simple mind.
Those who seek the "why" know that the "how" is relatively unimportant. Sure, it nice to know or think you understand all the "how's", but that doesn't fill the void within a person's psyche. That void is constantly repaired by believers of the "how" by reaffirmation of science and denial of "why".
Naturally, I will get a response out of believers of the "how" with regards about how complete and fulfilled their lives are without the "why", and they will respond with how their infantile, regressive, intellect is superior...but, that will just be their constant need of reaffirmation.
Can I get an "Amen" from believers of the "why"?
Also, I would submit that we are all in need of reaffirmation from time to time. Sir Thomas Browne once observed "It is the heaviest stone that melancholy can throw at a man, to tell him that he is at the end of his nature, or that there is no future state to come, unto which this seems progressive, and otherwise made in vain." Speaking for myself, I must acknowledge the truth in those words.
Of course, an agnostic or atheist might consider that statement sufficient grounds to question the motivation of some to assert the existence of personal immortality or an afterlife. And there might be something to that. But having a "vested interest" in something does not necessarily render it invalid or even dubious.
Finally, if one were going to push the issue, I would have to say that the pressure is on us. After all, who has more to lose by being wrong? :)
I guess we could play a game of semantics and switch or substitute words, and the exactness and clarity might not be lost. However, your question to me is would it persuade me to be a non-believer. And, the answer to that would be "no". There are some who believe and intrinsically know God regardless of any cognitive thought process. It's nice to have a fair share of both the "why" and "how" in one's head, but it is not necessary for belief.
Life's experiences can bring people to different conclusions...even, change pre-held conclusions that they thought they had written in stone years before. I have university degrees in Religion, Philosophy, Humanities, and Chemistry. I read and write Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Spanish. And, I like to think that I have a wide knowledge about a lot of things. However, I can be standing outside and a storm brews and lightning is striking all around...and, I can say to the heavens I know what causes you. Yet, as the rain begins to pour down on me I am humbled by my knowledge and have to accept the storm for what it is - beyond my control.
It is somewhat odd that you quote Sir Thomas Browne who was a very devout Christian. But, a good choice nevertheless because his works are filled with ideas that seem paradoxical to what he actually believed.
(I meant it affectionately) :)
In this time frame we have determined the big tree of life historically and that all of the diversity of life on this planet was caused by evolution (and its forces). We've shown this by simple observations of phenotypes and archeology/geology, and profoundly by nucleic acid sequencing of thousands upon thousands of animal/plant/microbial genomes. The religious luddites are incorrect. Evolution needs no intent and in fact uses no intent. Isn't theat something. In fact all of the clumsy mistakes made are written in all of the genomes of surviving life. No intent mistakes.
I think it is the religious who are terrified to think of anything outside of their assumptions and challenge them. That is what is so odd about your post. It is rather underwhelming in viewpoint.
For the records, fantasy fired the first shot and is still going amazingly strong considering.
I welcome your thoughts.
I am persuaded that the opponents take a narrow view or know too little about the field they find lacking while dismissing the uncertainties of their own.
For me--and it has been my view for some time--the battle is more a clash of egos than one of reason.
Have you ever heard the phrase "no true Scotsman" ?
90% of the people in our country are Christian in some form. The abuse of non-Christians and the lack of freedom for non-Christians is a fact. It has improved as more people are agnostic, atheist or practice other religions. However, no person can be elected to the highest office if he or she isn't a Christian. In some areas of our country people do not do business with you unless you are a Christian. In many areas certain types of Christians are forcing religion into public classrooms and dumbing down the classrooms. That isn't just ego, but power of factions abusing the public commons, public policy, and breaking laws of mixing religion with public policy. All across our country certain Christian groups are shutting down health clinics that deliver medical procedures, birth control and yes, abortion, too to poor women and their families. A little more than simply ego.
We went to war in Iraq driven by a born again Christian President. A war of choice with no relationship with 9/11. 5,000 of our people died and trillions spend in Treasure. Over 300,000 Iraqi civilians died from this and where are the Christians standing up against this as factions? If Iraq was a Christian nation, you can be sure that none of this war would have happened with our boots on the ground invading a separate nation.
You may want to expand your circle of friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrs8F33o9IU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VlL7BL7xCE&feature=related
Science trumps religion. Wake up call for christians.
As a Sufi, I don't believe in exclusivity or the thought that my path is the only means to touching the divine, or to solving the mysteries of the physical universe. The physical scientist takes methodical, empirical steps to perfecting a theory while the spiritual scientist takes the leap into his or her self and on faith makes discoveries. I believe the two should complement each other in a society that appreciates both.
I'm certain that the ultimate "truth" is somewhere in the middle.
And even if one refutes the trinitarian god figure, He is still the son of the god of Abraham, descended from the lineage of David.
My point is Jesus is the same god of the OT and simply because he gives a new twist to the scriptures, he is still YHWH of the OT as well. He is not some new Nice Kid on the block that you can dissociate from YHWH of the OT. You can't have it both ways; you can't dissociate completely, Christianity from Judaism.
He says that god in the OT was way outta control and had anger issues, but after he had the kid he straightened up and became more compassionate.
I agree when you write, “the real dangers are those which are ahead of the institutional churches. The primary danger is the secularizing of those institutions”.
Protestant America is trying all it can to become a “feel good” religious philosophy by distancing and secularizing itself from the fundamental principles of an institutionalized religion initially called Christianity (the Holy Roman Catholic Church); it's a form of auto-distruction.
And I agree that “This is the real deviation from the Scripture”.
So, atheists and agnostics do not need a “smoke screen to continue tearing down the structures of Christianity”, or of any other institutionalized religion (IR), because they are doing a good job of it themselves. All IRs are based on scriptures that have no authenticity or corroboration and therefore their proclamations of truth have no validity in themselves; they are full of their own contradictions to the point of not needing any help to auto-destruct.
As for the soul, it is quite possible that every living thing has one, not excluding Christians, so it could well be that every living thing (depending on your definition) has a Spirit of God in it.
I find your insinuation that “atheists, are void of the Spirit of God and missing the convictions of a soul”, offensive and self-righteous. Since when are the Spirit and the soul, one and the same and where is it proven that only Christians have either one?