er
You have said quite a bit.
I'm curious what a department head at a (private/non-secular) University had to say about this issue. Now that you tell me this, I'm really curious.
I hope you still had electricity.
Thankfully, we did!
(Though there isn't anything quite like living by candlelight for a little bit, with no TV or stereo or anything but the surrounding woods.)
We were discussing the interface of science and religion, and how it is unfortunate that in the mainstream public Christian view as well as certain religiously ignorant scientific circles, people of both sides see them as polar opposites. I've been in churches where all scientists and academics were literally condemned from the pulpit in a sermon to justify ignorance and a lack of learning or study. Likewise, I've been in meetings among colleagues in which I have been told that all Christians (yeah, me included) are "stupid" and "irrational."
What the pastor/department chair and I were discussing is that both of these views are profoundly ignorant. (I don't mean that disrespectfully, but rather literally- they just don't know much about the other side.) There are many scientists that have religious beliefs, including Christian, and I believe it is incredibly arrogant for the remaining scientists to assume that most of the world (as most people do have some form of religion) are somehow unintelligent people who are just needing the "information" to come from on high (i.e., from higher education and science). Yet likewise, I find it profoundly unjust and prejudiced to condemn science in general, when it is merely a way to try to understand how the world works. Just because someone is a scientist and is objective for
understanding others and the "natural' world does not mean that they do not spiritually and religiously seek understanding as well.
Even the most atheistic scientist, if s/he is a good one, will admit that science only answers questions that are objective: things like how, when, what. Science cannot answer why, or speak to spiritual issues, as the spiritual world is not the same as the physical one. Much of our modern conveniences such as modern medicine, electricity, and so forth is due to science. But knowing how the heart works and being able to fix it, and pondering why we were created in that form to begin with, are two different issues.
Religion and spirituality go after the big "unanswerables"- the stuff science cannot effectively touch. Why are we here? Where do we and other living things go after death? Is there a God? What is He like?
Now, what is truly interesting is where science can meet religion. These are the questions like: what is the nature of the universe? The nature of humanity? Why do people everywhere, since the time of the Neanderthals, show evidence of thinking about an afterlife and spiritual issues? How does the mind work?
We discussed that the public debate and media really misses both the complexity of the science/religion issue and the potential for the two to be reconciled (as they so often are for scientists that are Christians, Muslim, or any other faith). Why are so many physicists coming to believe there is a God? Why are so many anthropologists clinging to the idea there isn't? What do we all stand to gain or lose by being firmly between the two falsely-divided methods of inquiry? So often, it's being called a heretic on one side and an idiot on the other...
The reality is that so many issues are best tackled by a union of science and religion. Indeed, for most of humanity history (and in almost all cultures except "Western"- European, North American)
there was no distinction. People did not think reason and rationality were
outside of spirituality, but rather one more faculty
within it. Pondering humanity and pondering God were part of the same process. And this is perhaps the best way, especially when you consider the social sciences in a practical (rather than theoretical manner). I think it is no coincidence that religious treatments for things like alcoholism and mental illness are frequently more successful than secular psychotherapy, and if we think of what society could look like if we truly followed the example of Christ... ! No poverty, no homelessness, no one without health care... so many social ills at least on their way to being resolved.
What he and I agreed on is that the real tragedy is the lack of usefulness of such a divide. Science without religion is often heartless and cowardly. I may get flack from other scientists saying that. But without a focus on God, you are focused on self. And when you're focused on self, you worry about your standing in your discipline, your job, your retirement, etc. and therefore your actions are hampered. You may see opportunities to help others and fail to act because you are afraid of the consequences. You may see real social ills in various cultures (sexual molestation, or wife beating, or extreme and consistent violence) and be afraid to say it is wrong, because it will threaten your veneer of "non-bias" (which is hooey anway- we all have bias). But... too frequently, religious effort without science is ineffective. Religion, even Christianity, cannot on its own answer
how to cure the sick,
how to make sure there is enough food for all and it is better distributed, or even
how spread the Good News (which requires the linguists to translate!).
God gave us reason and the capacity to study people so we might better understand the
how behind spreading the Gospel and Christ's love. He gave us religion and spirituality so we might better understand the
why to do it in the first place.
And that about sums up the conversation... sorry- I know I said quite a bit more, but couldn't really condense it much more (it was a 2+ hour long conversation).
