Religion - Let's Really Get Things Stirred Up
We have not had any posts on the blog in a month. In my continuing effort to foster debate, I would like to introduce another controversial topic on which I know my opinion differs with almost everyone on this board.
This link is from a Time Magazine article written last year (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html). It is a summary of the debate between Richard Dawkins, a high profile atheist, and Francis Collins, a well-regarded scientist (mapper of the human genome), and avowed Christian.
I personally consider myself an agnostic, even though I know that Nym believes that is just a cop out. However, I love reading and discussing this issue, and, in particular, I think both of these guys make some interesting points. The article will take about 20 minutes to read so plan accordingly.
posted by Carl Spackler @ 1:32 PM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
I think this is by far the most telling paragraph of the exchange between the two scientists:
COLLINS: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn't able to provide about the natural world--the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I'm interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.
Dr. Collins, who spouses the “God is behind it” view, must “embrace the possibility.” And herein lies my issue with his viewpoint. In the last 100 years, not even a blink of an eye in evolutionary timeframes (and I use evolutionary because both of them agree upon the irrefutable proof of evolution, albeit not its raison d’etre), we have been chipping away at the concept of God. What once was a certainty has diminished to a remote possibility as we explain more and more natural phenomena, even for a believer such as Dr. Collins.
I must confess (and believe me, no pun intended here) that I personally have struggled with the questions raised by the article for most of my life. I am not a believer, and yet, I can’t help but to envy my friends and colleagues who sincerely believe. What an asset to have in trying times!!! Imagine being able to explain away (to yourself, no less) that there is a purpose in the death of a two-week old baby or in the suffering of a friend who is afflicted with breast cancer. Or that upon death, 100 years from now, we could be discussing similar matters in a more ethereal blog somewhere. I cannot in good conscience deride such a tool – even if I can never posses it. A though process which, of course, makes me the worst of cynics. I admire the lifestyle, the results achieved and yet cannot bring myself to embrace them.
I recognize both the good and the bad these deeply held beliefs have brought humanity. But I think in the balance religion has been a force for good – in spite of those who have used it to nefarious ends.
Centerline, I think you and I are in perfect agreement on this topic. I think agreeing with Dr. Collins would be the easier way to go, but I just can't bring myself to do it.
Any others willing to weigh-in on a difficult topic?
I recently found myself in a USAirways regional jet - halfway between North Carolina and Alabama. As I sat there at 9000ft with the arm rest chafing my ample lovehandles and the magazine sleeve on the seat in front of me digging into the soft tissue just below my knee cap.....I had time to read this Economist article on religon. Might not be a philosphical as Spackler but interesting read http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10015255
I had previously read this interview between Dawkins and Collins, both of whom I greatly respect and admire. After now rereading the article a year later I find that the arguments posed by the interviewer do not really delve into crux of the issues at hand: God vs. Science.
The posing of God vs. Science, as if fighting a Heavyweight Title of the Universe, is a bit preposterous, but it is to be expected in our present day media. Time magazine needs to sell articles, pitting one camp versus another is a great way to sell to both as well as to anyone who is sitting on the sidelines looking for a winner. Even the illustration mocks a UFC-style battle which could be the climax of a Hollywood Blockbuster: “Crouching Darwin, Hidden Gabriel.” In the end, both admit that Science and Religion are compatible structures. Dr. Dawkins, who is usually very quick to throw out any unreasonable faith-based assumption, admits that: “There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.” And as Dr. Collins says: “I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with [Dawkins] in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn't able to provide about the natural world--the questions about why instead of the questions about how.”
The problem I find, however, is not in whether God exists or not, but in why does this conflict between Science and God exist in the first place? This question I pose is the basis for reconciliation between believers and non-believers. To begin we first have to understand where both sides come from, their perspectives, and the root of their perspectives. The best example I found of the religious fervor stemming the Evolutionary debates was recently televised on a NOVA documentary Intelligent Design on Trial . It describes the principles of the founding thinkers of I.D., those of the Discovery Institute. The basic tenants of those thinkers can be found in a document outlining their mission statement called the Wedge Strategy .
The overriding philosophy of the Wedge Strategy is to overthrow Materialism, its governing goal “to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.” They name Darwin, Marx, and Freud as accomplices in this materialistic depravity. Now… Materialism is a very relative term, but one can get the gist of what they’re talking about by merely putting oneself in a Christian Fundamentalists shoes and turning on Fox news to watch Paris Hilton showing off her newest Bratz Doll on sale. This is totally understandable to me as I too am disgusted by the degeneracy and moral degradation of society. This is also the basis for much of the hate found in many Muslim as well as non-Muslin countries again the United States of America. This is not, however, a reason to declare a jihad on science and declare Evolution unfounded and immoral.
Of Social and Logical Retards
After doing a lot of research on this subject I have come to the following conclusions:
Scientists are very intelligent and educated, but often lack the social ability to pastor laymen into understanding the technicalities of their findings and how that fits into a common structure of the universe. They get stuck on terms like “Theory” which everyone in the scientific community understands as a Law (eg. the Theory of Evolution or Relativity) and everyone outside the scientific community thinks it was just pulled out of their asses (as think 30-50% of all Americans about Evolution). Religious Leaders, on the other hand, tend to be socially skilled and have a communal understanding of the universe, but often lack the intellectual discipline of reasoning to come to logical conclusions. Faith often becomes the “easy way out” of dealing with issues such as alcoholism, teenage pregnancy, or homosexuality, which get brushed under a holy carpet of penitence instead of confronting such problems directly.
Both forms of Retardation are curable, but they require Communication and Education. Without them, Scientists will keep pushing religions farther & farther away and believers will get stuck in a cycle of ignorance, quickening poor decisions that affect us all such as leading a country into avoidable war. Thankfully the internet provides a medium for all to communicate more effectively, learn more facts, and hopefully bridge the gap between religion and science.
“Does God Exist?”
Religion attacking Science is nonsense and vice-versa. Does anyone one on either side of the isle actually believe questions such will be answered in anyone’s lifetime? If in fact there is a God, Supreme Being or Consciousness, it seems to me incomprehensible in the mind of Man. Thus searching for an answer to the unanswerable question seems at the very least fruitless. There will always be unanswered questions for both sides to argue. A thousand years from now Religions might skeptically look at Scientists and say “Hey, I thought we weren’t alone!” as they fruitlessly wanders the universe in search of other life. The Infinite will not be conceivable by Man for any foreseeable timeframe. Man’s Time on the other hand is conceivably Finite. If you don’t believe me, try getting back the Time you spent reading this comment, you will find yourself only wasting more Time.
I just got around to reading the comments on this topic and I want to say that I really enjoyed the commentary from peace! That is good stuff.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home