The past few months, I've been working somewhat feverishly on a book for Routledge Press about the past, present, and future of science and religion in America. And this future part is probably the trickiest. We all know about predictions for the future that don’t seem to have played out so well.
Think about Disney’s Tomorrowland, which as I understand it, had to be rebuilt at one point because of its limited success at predicting the future. (Disney fans, help me on this...) My memory of Tomorrowland from the late 1970s was that today it wouldn't look like a warmed over version of The Jetsons, a show I loved as a kid, but is hardly matches what the world almost 50 years later. "The future," as Yogi Berra once declared, "ain't what it used to be."
This means I’ve been looking to sources for seeing the contours, but with caution. What do we make of those who reject any religious affiliation—the “nones” as in “none of the above”? (As I've noted--probably ad nauseam in this blog--they are about 35% of 18-30 year olds.) Is there a positive in their future contributions?
Theologian and philosopher Philip Clayton’s comments in Religion and Science: The Basics make particular sense: He highlights the growth of the nones along with their theological (if I can use that term) flexibility. In other words, he like me, recognizes that only a minority of nones are actually atheistic. More characteristic is their spiritually openness. See what you think:
Interest in the spiritual approach to science has grown rapidly in recent years. It’s no coincidence that these same years have seen a rapid decrease in participation in organized religion. The no-longer-affiliated or “Nones” have described themselves as “spiritual but not religious” or “spiritual independents.” They may practice yoga or meditation without much attention to traditional Hindu or Buddhist teachings. [This sounds like the “bricolage” or the “Spotify mix I’ve written about elsewhere.] They may find spirituality in different places: in nature or music, in being with friends or making love. They may tie together bits of sacred texts and practices without feeling that they have to be at home in just one. Philip Clayton
The nones will bring, as far as I can tell, an openness that will defuse conflict so often brought by the fundamentalisms, both religious and atheistic.
But will this deeper connection work? In other words, will those who look find that they can connect with science (and technology) and religion? It’s important to recall, as UC San Diego sociologist John Evans has observed, that the line of hardest resistance to mainstream science is with conservative Protestants and their ilk.
As nones remain more open to religion without the hard edges—and even the spirituality of science questing for answers that move us into new insights—is there a closer collaboration on the horizon? And how do we, who are confessional and rooted in mere Christianity, respond?
No comments:
Post a Comment