"A mystery is a problem that encroaches upon itself because the questioner becomes the object of the question. Getting to Mars is a problem. Falling in love is a mystery." --Gabriel Marcel
I love that quote. It reminds me that getting to Mars is a problem, a science and engineering problem. Mysteries, however, are different. Whether it's the science of spirituality, the afterlife and consciousness, or how man was birthed on this planet, science tries to solve mysteries, as well. Yet, mysteries may sometimes be more elusive. We don't really solve mysteries, we resolve them. Solutions of problems may require active work, whereas resolutions often warrant an explanation that dissipates the tension. One of the biggest mysteries today is a simple question: How did we get here?
Often, this question has been housed within a theo-scientific debate about evolution. The most recent micro-debate inside this dialogue is the question of Adam and Eve. Scientific evidence is pointing to confounding possibilities that challenge a literal understanding of Adam and Eve as recorded in the Torah (Old Testament).
What happens when you assume all living humans descended from only two progenitors? That couple could not have produced all contemporary human beings on their own. Scientists say that we should have less genetic diversity than we actually have, if we came from only two people. The genetic diversity today leads scientists to infer that all contemporary humans probably came from a small group of first humans (around 10,000) in order to display the genetic diversity that we do.
The June 2011 issue of Christianity Today contained an article, "The Search for the Historical Adam" about this controversy. NPR also wrote a story on this topic, seemingly presenting only two sides. Since then there have been many responses and blogs to these stories that highlight the preponderance of complex and nuanced views in between the extremes.
Some people, like Tim Keller, C. John Collins and an editorial writer in Christianity Today, believe that if there is no historical Adam, then the Gospel doesn't exist or make sense. Though David Lose disagrees, I love a diversity of views. What has bothered me more is the number of men, such as former and current seminary professors John Walton, Pete Enns, Bruce Waltke and Tremper Longman III, who all resigned or were fired because of their interpretation of the Bible and Genesis 1-3. Karl Giberson, a former physics professor at Eastern Nazarene College, experienced a similar situation for his views, and Calvin college professor John Schneider took early retirement due to controversy related to his views on the lack of a historical Adam or Eve.
Doubt has many roles. Even if a scientist, in one instance, uses doubt to cast a shadow on a particular theory or another person's conclusion, still, fundamental to science and the scientific method as it is practiced today is not to sit comfortably in doubt, but to seek answers to questions, to uncover answers to doubts, to discover answers to conundrums. Faith is different, of course. So the firings and retirements and calls of "heretic" scare me. We sometimes forget that God is mystery and a life of faith is one that is lived in the tension of never fully knowing. We often do a disservice in our faith communities when we use a scientific approach, regarding answers, in issues of faith.
I recently saw a Christian documentary called "Furious Love," which contained an interview of Dutch pastor/missionary Jan Sjoerd Pasterkamp, who quoted a Dutch church historian as saying, "We have dozens of Protestant denominations and Christian groups because, to the Dutch person, truth is more important than unity." By truth he meant dogmatic views and doctrine, or more importantly "my" interpretation of scriptures. And I admit it's hard; we're not just divided about doctrinal issues, but we're even divided about what is fundamental to being a Christian, Jew or Muslim. That's why people like Rob Bell can write a book like "Love Wins" and be labeled a non-Christian. Of course, this dividing truth is the factual, scientific kind of truth because the truth to which the Judeo-Christian tradition points is not factual, scientific truth but transformative truth. In that way the truth of faith is love. So you can be divided and confused about scientific knowledge and yet have unity based on a different kind of knowledge -- love.
I've experienced that science and faith have a commonality: What you believe is not as important as how you believe. There are climate scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by man. Though they are in the vast minority, they are scientists not because of what they believe, but rather because of how they believe or practice. They arrive at their conclusions based on the scientific method and their concluding judgment. Likewise, though in the minority, there are atheist scientists who do not support the theory of evolution. It's not their belief that makes them scientists. No, they are scientists because they use the scientific method and judgment in arriving at their belief.
Faith is similar. A life of faith is not so much a set of beliefs. Rather, faith is the transformative experience that opens you up to belief. Faith isn't really believing the right things, as it is more about an experience that allows you to breathe and believe in the right way -- a belief predicated on love. Faith is the love-forming experience that allows you to believe and doubt in the aftermath of that experience. In this way, Peter Rollins would say that orthodoxy is (mis)understood no longer as right (ortho) belief (doxy), but, read from right to left, now as "believing in the right way."
Though scientists may accuse another scientist of being a pseudo-scientist, in my small experience, such accusations tend to happen less in science than in faith. As long as you can defend your view, you're still a scientist; you simply disagree, even if it is within a heated debate. What I long for is more of the same in faith circles. If faith is predicated on love, and unity is one aspect of love, we are failing in the love department. In my faith communities, I've seen growing unity across linguistic, national and sociocultural differences, but where is the unity across theological differences? Are we not called to that, in love? Or in faith, is what you believe more important than how you believe?
Science seeks understanding. However, faith seeks "wonderstanding." I long for the days when people of faith linger in mysteries finding satisfaction not in understanding, but in the unification of "wonderstanding."
"Wonderstanding" is a term coined by Brian McLaren.
Taking Science on Faith - New York Times
Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith
Science & Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is science faith-based? | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
JESUS THE LAST NEPHILIM ISBN:797-1-84748-797-1.'This story has been written to bring attention to evidence that has been suppressed for over 80 years of the first and greatest civilization in Sumer. Check the Epic of Gilgamesh!!
As long as relgion makes scietific claims (humans have died and have had their flesh reaminated days later, water being transformed into wine, human/ spirit conception, etc) science has a duty to suss this stuff out. Either Mary was delivered 23 chromasomes in order that her egg be fertilized with spritual god goo, or ther is a simpler explanation. Either jesus was dead and subsequetly was reanimated, or he wasn't. These aren't untestable myteries. They are claims of the natural order being suspended. That is a big deal. Religion ought to be able to deal with non-scientists on big questions like whether Bacon is a sinful food. But the scientists have an obligation to call out the bizarre claims that make demands on physical laws. Either prayes for sick people work, or they're geard toward those people who like talking to themselves. Either we are moral to confir equal rights to a a 3 day old embryo that we do for a living person, or we are immoral for choosing that route. What's the science behind determining personhood? Religions do not play coy. They know what their agendas are. By its nature, scienc is obligated to peer review these religio/ scientific claims for veracity. I want to see the results.
Role of religion: the attempt to explain everything that has ever happened as the will of one omnipotent being for which no evidence exists
-Thank you.
certain philosophies acknowledge the intellect & freewill as immaterially comprising the form of human nature. because of this alone, and according to their philosophy, one must arrive at creatio ex nihilo, an article of faith. other philosophers, mainly materialists, identify the material and agent cause of human beings as one and the same, a past species. but then the question remains for them, how does the lesser (species) produce the greater (species)? evolution, in that sense, is more than mere change or adaptation within a given nature or species.
too bad philosophy is dismissed today, because it truly underlies many, if not all, facets of life.
"Likewise, though in the minority, there are atheist scientists who do not support the theory of evolution. It's not their belief that makes them scientists. No, they are scientists because they use the scientific method and judgment in arriving at their belief."
First, there are no scientists who've studied evolution that reject it - none. There may be a few who dispute certain specific interpretations and conclusions within evolution, but not the overall theory. More importantly, science is not a belief and it's most certainly not equivalent on any level to the evidence-free, belief religion requires.
Not. One. Clearly, if I were to identify one, or three, or 300, or 3000 they'd not be 'scientists' in your mind because their conclusions are inconsistent with current mainstream scientific thought, so judged by their conclusions alone they cannot be called 'scientists'.
Just as the dogmatic Catholic Church declared Galileo a heretic for suggesting the earth revolved around the sun.
But of course, your view of what makes a scientist is not so dogmatic as to be similar to that of the Catholic Church. Of course not.
Not one, indeed.