A few days ago I had to begin using fingers on both hands to tally the count of economic and institutional powerhouses speaking out for strong governm...
Engagement with our devices, however trance-like and 'wired-in' it feels at its most intense, has an underlying quality of 'doing mind' - a state of mind that is active, intellectually engaged, in-flow perhaps, but busy achieving.
While Laurence Krauss has publicly denounced philosophy, he can't seem to stop himself from doing it and doing it badly (and publicly, to boot). His lack of intellectual self-control is remarkable given that he is an accomplished physicist.
Whenever I mention that I specialize in religion and science, one of the first questions is "Are you a scientist?" Well, actually, I'm not. And there's a reason. I'm a Christian -- as well as a pastor and theologian specializing in this field -- who has found that scientific insights enhance, challenge, and strengthen my faith
Previously I've explored differences between certain interpretations of faith and science by looking at emphases on orthodoxy versus orthopraxy, the role of doubt, and the beginning of man. But now, I want to look at possible and exciting areas of convergence, confluence, and synergy between faith and science. Here is my short list.
The Pope's Encyclical reflects a growing and important relationship between religious leaders and the scientific community, one that DoSER has actively supported for 20 years by facilitating conversations between scientists and religious communities.
Doesn't religious belief prevent those of faith from engaging with the insights of science? Actually, not really.
Political and religious conservatives claim the rights of religion in the marketplace of ideas and the public square. Why not support the same claim when religion and science come together to save the planet and its poor?
A rush of powerful, transforming emotion. A love that overwhelms. A bolt of altered perspective. An encounter with pure beauty. A profound realization of significance--or insignificance.
I am an agnostic scientist who happens to also be fascinated with the world's religions, especially the Abrahamic religions -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
You have heard Creationists and their sympathizers evoke the comment that you cannot assemble life from randomness. What you don't know is that this is an intentional misunderstanding of science that, unfortunately, works to sway millions of people.
Carbon pollution is undeniably the material cause of Earth's climate breakdown, but what is the root cause? Blaming our growth-dependent economic systems does not, in my view, go deep enough. Ultimately, religion is responsible -- but not in the way secularists might assume.
On a public level, substituting "fidelity" for "faith" in our discussions would let us get past the tired faith-versus-science debate (or even the faith-versus-works debate). And on a personal level, all of us could benefit from analyzing our own embodied lives to find out to what or to whom we are authentically faithful.
Many historians view Hypatia's murder as the symbolic death of classical antiquity, the advent of a thousand year period of intellectual darkness, whose eventual coda was the Renaissance.
A woman spoke that evening whose son had died, and he was a registered donor. His organs went to seven different people. It was such a moving talk. I was deeply affected by what she shared and her son's sacrifice. It made me think of two things.
Humanity is in a tight race between enlightenment and catastrophe: economic, environmental, and social. As a species we need all the wisdom we can muster. Truth is one, and any thoughtful effort to heal the enmity between science and religion should be lauded.