I’m
concluding my reflections on the predicated future state of the dialogue of
science and religion based on my research with emerging adults (18-30). It’s
probably worth emphasizing that I am primarily outlining problems that have
come to me. I am seeking first to understand, then to be understood (to quote both Stephen Covey and the famous St. Francis prayer). The next task will be to formulate responses.
These
recent posts have also been sketches for something more substantial. Being sketches, I now realize something: the six main problems facing the integration of
science and faith for emerging adults, which I've outlined in these posts, can be grouped into four main areas--perception of
conflict; resistance to intellectual work; ancient faith, modern problems; and
pluralism and decisions. (If you read the previous posts, you'll see how these categories fit.)
Accordingly, I now move to one final problem in the third category, two problems in the
fourth category, and a concluding postscript.
Ancient
faith, modern problems
In
terms of the church’s often not embracing the
lesbian-bisexual-gay-transgendered community, religious communities often seem to the wider public uninformed by science.
The majority of emerging adults
support same-sex marriage. A 2013 Pew Research Center poll states, “The new survey
finds 67% of ‘Millennials’ – born since 1980 and age 18-32 today – are in favor of
same-sex marriage.” And though some denominations (e.g., Episcopalian,
Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ) solemnize same-sex
ceremonies, the strong majority of Christian churches today is, and its
historical consensus has been, marriage is a covenant between one man and one
women. The church’s stance on this and the related set of issues does set it in
conflict with mainstream culture.
Partly, this question relates to how
science relates to ethical questions, let alone what the science is that helps
us understand same-sex attraction. Certainly, science can inform, but not entirely
decide ethics. Indeed, ethical deliberations can stand on their own without
needing science as the final arbiter of truth. Nonetheless, science can help us
understand to some level the genetics and psychology of same sex attraction.
And it’s fairly clear whether mainstream science is on same-sex attraction: For
example, the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its
list of disorders in 1973 from its DSM II. Less conclusively, there appears to
be some genetic predisposition toward same-sex attraction, but in this and
other areas, no one can demonstrate a direct link between certain genes and
specific behaviors. My reading, nonetheless, is that most young adults believe
that science supports the equivalence of heterosexual and homosexual
attraction.
Thus, this problem relates to the
previous post (on how to interpret and live by an ancient text, namely the
Bible) since the means by which the church uses its key Scripture will
determine how it makes decision about its ethics, and particularly how it
changes its views.
Pluralism
and decisions
Many
emerging adults would rather Google than go than go to a congregation in
pursuing of answers about science and religion. For the people who come
from faith to this question, Jonathan Hill’s in his forthcoming Emerging Adulthood and Faith indicates
that a pastor’s voice is probably more important than the Internet or the
college classroom: “For most students, then, it matters little what their
professor teaches… What their friends, parents, and pastor thinks is going to
be far more important, because their social world is inextricably tied up with
these significant others” (p. 71). In contrast, for religious seekers (in all
varieties), there needs to be further work here in bringing out integrationist views
of science and religion, and they are often distrustful of the church as a
place to seek out answers about science and religion. Partly, this reflects a
distrust in the institutional church as a repository for truth-seeking. Faith in
the Internet (as it were) also returns me to earlier reflections about the
general tone about the Internet and religion—that it’s largely negative. For
those outside, the Internet appears to neutral, perhaps even objective. In addition, the conflict model seems to
predominate in its ability to provide “click bait.” We are naturally,
neurologically stimulated by threat and thus by conflict.
It’s
hard to decide on one religion in light of all the possibilities for
spirituality, which makes it difficult to know what religion to bring to
science. This is partly the simple problem of pluralism, which has become
exacerbated by the explosion of knowledge on the Internet, which is approaching
a trillion websites (a number that can even be monitored on http://www.internetlivestats.com/total-number-of-websites).
But I don’t think we can evade the issue simply by asserting that this problem
has been in play for a long time; it certainly continues.
Concluding, largely unscientific postscript
Overall, the integration of faith
with scientific insight becomes best resolved by employing good rhetoric for
mature, thoughtful religious faith—in other words, making its truth interesting
and beautiful. I don’t think this task is any different for emerging adults
than any other generation. Truth must become beautiful. And by that sentence I
mean that rhetoric—as the engagement with beauty—should be used in concert with
philosophy—as the pursuit of truth. Truth is only worth engaging if it’s
beautiful, and beauty is that which allures us. By this, I mean a particular
beauty, the beauty of life making sense, of satisfying needs we have for deep
abiding happiness or Aristotle’s “human flourishing.”
I
concur here with the great French physicist Henri Poincaré, who commented,
“The scientist does not study nature because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes pleasure in it; and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing and life would not be worth living….”
I join hands with the ancient Eastern church's view of
theology as philokalia, the love of
beauty. In fact, my goal is to join these two disciplines so that science and
faith can together lead to a thoughtful life that is both truly beautiful and
beautifully true.
No comments:
Post a Comment