I just typed “science and religion” into google, and clicked on “images”. What I got was a deluge of pictures, cartoons and dismissive (sometimes vitriolic) statements, almost all selling the view summed up in examples such as:
“Religion will never understand science and science will never give a shit about religion.”
“Science: always doubt; always question; when challenged, replies with evidence. Religion: no doubt, no question; when challenged, becomes hostile.”
“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.” (sometimes attributed to Richard Dawkins, but I think it originated with Victor Stenger)
Whatever happened to Albert Einstein’s more measured voice? Or Martin Luther King? Or Gandhi? Continue reading
The blog is intended to give people a way in, in a briefer format than is typical for a book. I have already given some book-length thoughts, and I intend to discuss some issues at greater length eventually in another book, but here I will offer an introductory comment on the two activities called science and religion. Continue reading
This blog is just starting out. It is in the area of science and religion. Somebody invited me to say in one hundred words what I think the relationship between them is. If you will allow me 120 words, then here is my attempt:
Some worldviews called religious see all goodness, including love, integrity and language, and also mathematics and logic, as emanating from a dynamic creative reality. This reality supports but is not part of the natural world, interacting with it in various ways, at precisely that balance of hint and clarity as makes it possible for humans to respond freely. We find this to be a reality which meets us on every level, including the personal. This is our truest parent. Scientific analysis shows us the patterns which make the natural world what it is. That world is open to agency from humans and other creatures, and from its ultimate support. Our truest parent’s role is, chiefly, compassionate comradeship and creative inspiration.