So here are the first three from my Top Eleven list (stated with brevity and therefore probably some distortion):
1. Religion and Rationality
A common slogan I hear from my college students and read in various kinds of media is, “Science is about evidence. Faith is about having none, but believing anyway”; or the gauntlet that Richard Dawkins threw down, “Faith means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.” Naturally, many religions look to an unseen reality, God or gods, while science seeks to understand the workings of the natural world, and so there needs to be a healthy analytical independence. Nonetheless, faith in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is essentially reliance or trust. Or as C.S. Lewis defined it, “the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”
1. Religion and Rationality
A common slogan I hear from my college students and read in various kinds of media is, “Science is about evidence. Faith is about having none, but believing anyway”; or the gauntlet that Richard Dawkins threw down, “Faith means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.” Naturally, many religions look to an unseen reality, God or gods, while science seeks to understand the workings of the natural world, and so there needs to be a healthy analytical independence. Nonetheless, faith in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is essentially reliance or trust. Or as C.S. Lewis defined it, “the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”
Certainly, not all religious traditions emphasize faith, and so an antireligious cavil against “faith” can represent a category error. Buddhism, for example, focuses on enlightenment, since indeed the word Buddha has as its root “enlighten” or “awaken.” In addition, Buddhism offers an openness to change its teachings based on new information (cf. the 250 BCE Kalama Sutta). Fruitful conversations need to continue unfolding in at least two directions: how to integrate various sciences and technologies with religious traditions that do not privilege faith; and how to engage with mature definitions of monotheistic faith and avoid simplistic, unhelpful slogans.
2. God's Action
David Sloan Wilson once commented in a discussion about evolution and religious faith, “I can see how some sort of deity is possible with evolution, but not a personal God who intervenes in the world” (my paraphrase). Not all religions believe in a deity, but for those who do, how do they conceive of God’s action? Quantum physics in supplanting Newtonian mechanics described a new concept of the world, and some thinkers find in quantum indeterminancy fresh opportunities to frame God’s work. Others, through a process of Whiteheadian metaphysics, portray a deity who is persuasive and non-coercive. And still others take recourse in the more traditional Thomistic dual causation.
3. Evolution
To many it’s either the Bible or Darwin. The problem is that the clear consensus of mainstream science is with evolution as a theory that has guided scientific research in a variety of fields for over a century and a half. The topic of evolution naturally encompasses more than simply origins—i.e., how can we put Genesis 1–3 together
with evolution and the Big Bang?
-->
2. God's Action
David Sloan Wilson once commented in a discussion about evolution and religious faith, “I can see how some sort of deity is possible with evolution, but not a personal God who intervenes in the world” (my paraphrase). Not all religions believe in a deity, but for those who do, how do they conceive of God’s action? Quantum physics in supplanting Newtonian mechanics described a new concept of the world, and some thinkers find in quantum indeterminancy fresh opportunities to frame God’s work. Others, through a process of Whiteheadian metaphysics, portray a deity who is persuasive and non-coercive. And still others take recourse in the more traditional Thomistic dual causation.
To be sure, I’m listing just three of several possible religious options. Others head in an opposite direction and talk about science as “atheistic,” meaning God doesn’t play a factor (e.g., Lawrence Krauss), which also contrasts markedly with some scientists (e.g., Francis Collins) who see nature as a place to witness God’s creative action.
The bottom line is this question: does God act in the world? Most religious Americans answer by saying that scientific descriptions should include God’s action and that scientists should be open to miracles.
3. Evolution
To many it’s either the Bible or Darwin. The problem is that the clear consensus of mainstream science is with evolution as a theory that has guided scientific research in a variety of fields for over a century and a half. The topic of evolution naturally encompasses more than simply origins—i.e., how can we put Genesis 1–3 together
with evolution and the Big Bang?
This also raises the question of human uniqueness, since evolutionary thought connects all life. Hindus commonly affirm that, “All living things have Atman (self or soul), and all Atman are parts of one Brahman, the one universal mind or consciousness that is the source of all things,” and the Jains hold that “all living things have a soul of jiva.” Which religious views then connect most effectively with evolution?
No comments:
Post a Comment