Reason to Hope: A New Deal for Religion and Science
"[The 21st] century will be defined by a debate that will run through the remainder of its decades: religion versus science. Religion will lose." --John McLaughlin, TV talk show host
Former priest John McLaughlin is hardly alone in his pessimism about religion's future. A spate of bestsellers -- "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins; "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris; and "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by the late Christopher Hitchens -- argues that religion, as we've known it, no longer serves the needs of people with a modern education and a global awareness.
Books like these have spelled out religion's shortcomings and I see no point in piling on. Rather, in a series of posts, I'll make the case that, in the long view, both religion and science come off as godsends (forgive the pun). And that, looking ahead, both are indispensable to letting go of old predatory practices and creating a fair, just and peaceful world. If religion can see its way clear to making a mid-course correction and science can get off its high horse, John McLaughlin's prediction could be proven spectacularly wrong.
Many of the voices now being raised against religion are over-confident and patronizing, rather like those of trial-lawyers who feel the jury is in their pocket. Perhaps that's because they are increasingly preaching to a public alarmed by clerical abuses and fundamentalist zealotry. Contemporary religious leaders, painfully aware of the relationship between public participation and institutional viability, realize that religion is in a fight for its life.
I realize that this terrain is full of landmines. In the hope of defusing a few, let me acknowledge at the outset that the word religion means different things to different people. To some, it's knowledge and wisdom; to others, superstition and dogma. To some, it's worship; to others, wonder. To some, religion is salvation; to others, it's seeking. To some, religion is of divine origin; to others, it's man-made.
I use "religion" to refer loosely to the metaphysical, moral and transformational precepts of the founders, prophets, saints and sages of the major religions. The focus of these blog posts is neither the theological doctrines associated with particular faiths nor the liturgical practices characteristic of various sects. Rather, the goal is to present a unifying perspective on the findings of religious and scientific inquiry.
Then, since the divergence between science and religion no longer serves either, I'll address the obstacles that have kept them from developing a "beautiful friendship" and describe the pay-off we may expect once they're both on the same side.
Science gives us reason to think we can vanquish famine, disease and poverty. Religion heralds "peace on Earth, goodwill toward men." Neither of these venerable institutions can deliver on its vision without help from the other, but together there is reason to hope that they can. As partners, science and religion can make the golden rule largely self-enforcing, and hasten our arrival into a world wherein everyone's dignity is secure.
I know this sounds utopian, but wait and see. Developments in both science and religion have laid the foundation for a new synthesis. Ending centuries of fruitless squabbling and initiating a beautiful friendship is at last possible. If you'll suspend your skepticism long enough to follow this series of posts, I think you'll agree. And if you're not persuaded, you'll at least come away with some new questions.
The next post tells what hooked me on these issues in the first place: the incompatible notions of truth advocated by my two schools -- sunday school and public school.
Follow Robert Fuller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robertwfuller
Alan Jones: On Missing Christopher Hitchens
Stephen R. Friberg: Science, Religion, and the Bahá'í Faith
Rev. Michael Dowd: Evolving Gallup's Poll on Evolution
The big bang theory was named by Fred Hoyle but the theory and, for that matter, what we now call the Hubble Constant were produced by a Belgian Roman Catholic Priest and astrophysicist, Georges Lemaitre.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are new religious concepts, seemingly produced by people who understand Christian theology even less than they do science. Dawkins and co, in attacking these falsehoods, do the classic job of bathwater with the baby and, in so doing, demonstrate appallingly low academic standards in trying to bend history to deny the entirely significant role of religion in the development of science.I think that this articel sadly misses this point.
You argue for a religion stripped of it's nonsensical supernatural trappings and rendered down to it' s ethical and moral precepts.
In which case we call that PHILOSOPHY.
Or you leave the supernatural nonsense in place, religion remains diametrically opposed to the principles of science, and no, there is no beautiful friendship to be had in the mind of any rational observer.
Really?
Ok, religion has had several thousand years to do that. So... lay it on us. No unfounded assertions or empty claims unbacked by any form of evidence please, if I need those I can get them from any four year old.
What is the answer to the who and the why and how did religion figure it out?
I look forward to following your post but feel compelled to toss in a comment.
The fundamental conflict between religion and science is on the ultimate nature of life. If science can show that our lives are well described in a material-only fashion then the religious perspective is fundamentally rebutted. What consolation would a proof of the existence of God offer? To a surprising degree this is presumed in modern societies like our own, and thus the wane of sincere religious practice.
Questioning science's view is not hard but is not supported (I just had my comment refused from NYT's "The Future, in a Past Life" for this reason). The obvious place for soul-support is broadly with the "missing heritability" problem and with the suggestive stuff - prodigies, unexpected sexual orientations, inexplicable phobias and philias, the mysteries associated with monozygotic twins, young children's innate soul- or spirit-based understanding of life, etc. What material-only explanation comes to mind when encountering people who have spent their entire lives wishing they were the opposite sex and a related recent study that found that many of them who have undergone sex-change efforts (transitioned) “knew they had been born into the wrong gender from childhood”?
(Hitting word limit) With objective traction then religions have a chance to support a deeper and more constructive view of life. This could be very helpful.
If you care to, you can see how similar (or different) our approaches may be by perusing my HuffPost contributions along these lines: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-michael-dowd/
Co-evolutionarily,
~ Michael