Not necessarily so. At least, it doesn't have to be that way. Science finds itself under attack on many fronts from fundamentalist religion, and in response to these attacks a number of scientists (and others) have become very vocal in response, attacking religion as an irrational, unsupported, ancient superstition from a time before science, a relic that is no longer necessary for modern society, one that is in fact harmful.
Even before these scientists helped to launch the "New Atheist" movement, some believers seemed, and still seem today, positively afraid of science. They hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, that every word is literally true, inspired by God (except the prophecies in Daniel or Revelation, which they interpret in various ways). Thus when it comes to certain facets of science, specifically biological evolution, paleontology, astronomy, chemistry and geology (among others), the response of this set of believers is to deny, deny, deny. But in the process, they are missing out on some of the most wonderful stories about our world and our universe, something that is to their detriment, whether they realize it or not.
Even worse, some go further in promoting the false "science" of creationism, Intelligent Design or Flood geology, attempting to translate the stories of the Bible into scientific theories. This does a disservice to both science and religion, retarding the progress of science by forcing it to fight against ideas that have no currency within established science and cheapening religion by forcing it to pretend that it is something it isn't. Religious believers use these attempts at science in an attempt to provide evidence for the existence of God and the literal truth of the Scriptures. In the process, however, they twist both religion and science. Science deals with the natural world; by definition, the person of God is a supernatural entity. I repeat a statement from yesterday; there is no evidence for the existence of God, nor can there be. Science, not religion, is about evidence; the existence of God is something to be taken or dismissed based on personal belief, on faith, as it were. Science does, however, render a literal reading of Genesis impossible; science demonstrates that the world is older than a literalist interpretation would have it, that species evolved over four billion years of Earth history, not in a few days. However, a metaphorical reading of Genesis is certainly possible, a practice followed by millions of believers everyday who have no problem accepting evolution and the rest of modern science based on the evidence and who retain their faith. The Pope, evolutionist Francisco J. Ayala and geneticist Francis Collins are three who do just that. I am constantly perplexed by people who say that it is impossible to take the first few chapters of Genesis metaphorically but have no problem doing the same for Revelation, Daniel, the prophecies of the major and minor prophets and the Song of Songs; if those books can be taken as metaphor, why not Genesis too?
This is my olive branch. Religion has nothing to fear from science.
However, by attempting to mask itself as a science, or insert itself into science, religion is playing a dangerous game. I've been told endless times that one "cannot have both Jesus and evolution," as though evolution is some wacky sect seeking converts. This is a game that faith should not play, as it can only lose. When you try to force people to choose between the two, don't be surprised if your numbers dwindle as a consequence. If you attempt to hold on to "creation science" ideas instead of reconciling faith with what science has to say, don't be surprised if people refuse Jesus because faith's attempt at science is so patently false. St. Augustine's warning on this very topic remains pertinent over a thousand years after his death. He warned religious believers not to take the early part of Genesis literally, for if it is to be shown wrong then the entire Gospel message will be rejected by many because of it--
"If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
This is a warning; if you try to make people choose between the mysteries of religion and the evidence of science, don't be surprised if they turn away. Instead of making this false dichotomy between science and religion, instead reconcile yourself to the amazing story that science has uncovered. We've advanced far, and will advance further because of the method, investigations and findings of science. Everyone is welcome to come along for the ride, as the deepest workings of the universe are uncovered.
Even before these scientists helped to launch the "New Atheist" movement, some believers seemed, and still seem today, positively afraid of science. They hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, that every word is literally true, inspired by God (except the prophecies in Daniel or Revelation, which they interpret in various ways). Thus when it comes to certain facets of science, specifically biological evolution, paleontology, astronomy, chemistry and geology (among others), the response of this set of believers is to deny, deny, deny. But in the process, they are missing out on some of the most wonderful stories about our world and our universe, something that is to their detriment, whether they realize it or not.
Even worse, some go further in promoting the false "science" of creationism, Intelligent Design or Flood geology, attempting to translate the stories of the Bible into scientific theories. This does a disservice to both science and religion, retarding the progress of science by forcing it to fight against ideas that have no currency within established science and cheapening religion by forcing it to pretend that it is something it isn't. Religious believers use these attempts at science in an attempt to provide evidence for the existence of God and the literal truth of the Scriptures. In the process, however, they twist both religion and science. Science deals with the natural world; by definition, the person of God is a supernatural entity. I repeat a statement from yesterday; there is no evidence for the existence of God, nor can there be. Science, not religion, is about evidence; the existence of God is something to be taken or dismissed based on personal belief, on faith, as it were. Science does, however, render a literal reading of Genesis impossible; science demonstrates that the world is older than a literalist interpretation would have it, that species evolved over four billion years of Earth history, not in a few days. However, a metaphorical reading of Genesis is certainly possible, a practice followed by millions of believers everyday who have no problem accepting evolution and the rest of modern science based on the evidence and who retain their faith. The Pope, evolutionist Francisco J. Ayala and geneticist Francis Collins are three who do just that. I am constantly perplexed by people who say that it is impossible to take the first few chapters of Genesis metaphorically but have no problem doing the same for Revelation, Daniel, the prophecies of the major and minor prophets and the Song of Songs; if those books can be taken as metaphor, why not Genesis too?
This is my olive branch. Religion has nothing to fear from science.
However, by attempting to mask itself as a science, or insert itself into science, religion is playing a dangerous game. I've been told endless times that one "cannot have both Jesus and evolution," as though evolution is some wacky sect seeking converts. This is a game that faith should not play, as it can only lose. When you try to force people to choose between the two, don't be surprised if your numbers dwindle as a consequence. If you attempt to hold on to "creation science" ideas instead of reconciling faith with what science has to say, don't be surprised if people refuse Jesus because faith's attempt at science is so patently false. St. Augustine's warning on this very topic remains pertinent over a thousand years after his death. He warned religious believers not to take the early part of Genesis literally, for if it is to be shown wrong then the entire Gospel message will be rejected by many because of it--
"If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
This is a warning; if you try to make people choose between the mysteries of religion and the evidence of science, don't be surprised if they turn away. Instead of making this false dichotomy between science and religion, instead reconcile yourself to the amazing story that science has uncovered. We've advanced far, and will advance further because of the method, investigations and findings of science. Everyone is welcome to come along for the ride, as the deepest workings of the universe are uncovered.
Can I just "push" the "like" button?
ReplyDeleteSomething else that is interesting to note during debates over school curriculum content:
ReplyDeleteThe Christian Right and atheists are often in agreement that religion should be taught in public schools, considering that religion has had an undeniable effect (for better or worse)on world/U.S. history.
Where the agreement breaks down is when atheists propose comparative religion courses in humanities/civics/history settings versus the Christian Right's idea of studying religion which consists of compelling students to participate in Christian invocation, readings of Christian Biblical text, and exclusively teaching the Christian origin story in the context of science.