Father Michael K. Holleran wrote three pieces for discovermagazine.com in the fall of 2006. His other essays are here and here. Commenting is now closed.
Why am I daring to undertake this blog? The short answer is that the publisher and CEO of Discover personally asked me to try it. I was his parish priest in Greenwich Village, in Manhattan, and we had many fruitful exchanges about religion in the modern world. The deeper answer is that we both consider the current interplay of science and religion to be too much cast as clash and not enough sensed as symphony. My first entry on the blog develops this theme.
Two cautions about my qualifications are in order as we begin—one on science and one on religion. As to the first, I admit I am not a scientist but simply have an educated layman's fascination with the subject. My college studies in the field were an exhilarating time of discovery both of the beauty of science and of its grand potential as a dance partner with religion. What's more, my own father is indeed a scientist and a major source of inspiration for me, in this as in many other areas. He taught postgraduate chemistry at St. John's University for nearly 40 years and at the age of 85 is still doing research and having papers published in his field. At the same time, he has long been a fervent Catholic, an avid reader of theological issues, and dedicated to service within his church community.
advertisement | article continues below
The second caution has to do with what we mean by "religion." As a Roman Catholic priest, I obviously come to the conversation with my formation in the wondrously rich intellectual tradition of Catholicism. I do not, however, have a formal theological degree. What I do have is Jesuit training, not only from high school (Regis) and college (Fordham), but also as a Jesuit myself for five years. Perhaps more importantly, I have over twenty years' experience as a hermit contemplative monk in the Carthusian Order. (The life of the Grande Chartreuse, where I lived for seven years, is the subject of the recent documentary Into Great Silence [click here to see the New Yorker's review and click here to hear Father Holleran talk about the film]. While there I was in charge of the production of our liqueur—Chartreuse—a job that surely mingles not only herbal ingredients but also art and science!) For this reason, I do not consider my stance to be either conservative or liberal but contemplative. By this I mean an attitude that shuns ideology and rests in the grateful and often scary appreciation of the real as it reveals itself in all its splendor. For this reason, too, I have an immense respect for other religions and their traditions, and look forward to having blog participants enlarge the discourse with insights from their own spiritual backgrounds. I myself have training in yoga and more especially in Zen Buddhism, and hope to be able to offer for your consideration some contributions from these venerable worldviews.
Perhaps a better way of saying this is that I have an enormous respect for the often tortuous and frequently exciting personal journey of each individual in sincerity and freedom. This brings me to yet a third caution, which is perhaps the most important of all, and which I touch on in the inaugural blog post. However contrary it may be to the rules of discourse (or lack thereof) in the contemporary blogosphere, I hope we can engage in a gracious and courteous conversation. I deem that the only mode worthy of the truth. We should by all means challenge and question one another, but I should hope our interchange would never descend to the level of mere unvetted venting, or, much less, to ad hominem argumentation. Caveat scriptor (let the writer beware)!
May we be embraced by the light, however we imagine it; for I suspect that is somehow already the condition for an authentic search for the light.
And may that be truly what we seek.
—Father Michael K. Holleran
Blindness of Religion
Posted by
Dave Jarvis
at
2007-09-25 18:13
Kurt
Wise, a keen, educated geologist, stated (In Six Days, Ashton [1999]):
"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I
am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the
Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in
college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism,
I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist
because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must
stand."
Undoubtedly, he stands in stark contrast to the ideas and ideals of science. In science, when facts are found to be incorrect (even in a matter of a slight degree), subsequent publications on the matter seek to illuminate the mistake, and consequently correct it. The same cannot be said for holy texts. When religion encounters logic, it dodges, it refutes. Religion shuns, spurns, and douses Truth with might that only Faith seems able to wield. It comes across like an idiosyncratic dogmatic mantra: The holy book is true, and if evidence contradicts it, the evidence itself must be dismissed.
Father Michael, you asked us to avoid ad hominem calls of hypocrisy, to turn a blind eye to the failures of the past: the atrocities of both religion and science. To imply, with some subtlety, that no modern theologian takes a literal view of the book of Genesis. However, therein lies one of the more brilliant points Dawkins makes in his book, The God Delusion. Relgious people, Dawkins notes, "pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories." To discard those parts of the Scripture that no longer align with modern moral, humanistic standards, while admirable, shows how tenuous, even flippant, religious beliefs can be. How incongruent with the search for Truth, when truths can be rewritten or discarded by the whim of a single prophet.
Yet if we were to ignore the history of religion, to open the doors for future discourse, would we not also be turning a blind eye to the possible future pitfalls that has so marred its bloody past? Is it just to say, "Let us forget about the massacres. Forget about 9/11. Forget the Spanish Inquisition. Forget the Holocaust. Crusades? What Crusades? We will pretend the Saxon Wars never happened." And instead say, "Let us focus on how religion can enhance our understanding of the Truth, ignoring its shady past. Let us now find a way for science and religion to co-exist, in a civilised form"?
How is it possible to talk about the honest intent of religion when, when presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the minds of the faithful do not budge to adopt and adapt new Truths? When, instead, they adamantly refuse to believe that which is in complete contrast to words written hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago? Or even flatly deny the outcomes of present day experiments, which also, in remarkable contrast, undermine stodgy beliefs?
Consider the results posted in the April 2006 issue of American Heart Journal. The Templeton Foundation tested, in a double-blind, controlled experiement whether or not prayer improved (or otherwise affected) the health of sick individuals. Just over 1800 people, who underwent coronary bypass surgery, were split into three groups. Group 1 received prayers, yet did not know. Group 2 received no prayers, yet did not know (the control group). Group 3 received prayers, yet knew.
Groups 1 and 2 held no significant difference in recovery time (no surprise, really). However, Group 3 held significantly more complications than the others. Dawkins suggests that the most likely explanation was not that God was smiting them, or that God could somehow see through the test (and thus continued His oddly vacuous "testing of faith") but rather they suffered from "performance anxiety". However, the actual results are beside the point.
The Templeton Foundation saw a means to put prayer within the realm of science. It funded and successfully executed a double-blind study to examine the effect of prayer. The study very well could have yielded a positive result. The study could have established a link that prayer has a positive effect on the sick. That, possibly, Something "out there" is tuned in to the thoughts of various humans spread out across the land.
And had such an experiement shown a positive outcome, do you think that any religious individual would have "dismissed it on the grounds that scientific research has no bearing on religious matters?" I highly doubt it.
Of course, such an experiment will have little effect on the faithful. As Dawkins so wonderfully posits: Religious pundits "know" from personal experience that prayer works, as they have seen it work (anecdotes are scientifically invalid, by the way), so if "evidence fails to show it, we'll just soldier on until finally we get the result we want."
Religious zealots have shown, time and time again, that they have no interest in, nor respect for, Truth. And without truth there can be honest discourse.
So why even pretend?
Undoubtedly, he stands in stark contrast to the ideas and ideals of science. In science, when facts are found to be incorrect (even in a matter of a slight degree), subsequent publications on the matter seek to illuminate the mistake, and consequently correct it. The same cannot be said for holy texts. When religion encounters logic, it dodges, it refutes. Religion shuns, spurns, and douses Truth with might that only Faith seems able to wield. It comes across like an idiosyncratic dogmatic mantra: The holy book is true, and if evidence contradicts it, the evidence itself must be dismissed.
Father Michael, you asked us to avoid ad hominem calls of hypocrisy, to turn a blind eye to the failures of the past: the atrocities of both religion and science. To imply, with some subtlety, that no modern theologian takes a literal view of the book of Genesis. However, therein lies one of the more brilliant points Dawkins makes in his book, The God Delusion. Relgious people, Dawkins notes, "pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories." To discard those parts of the Scripture that no longer align with modern moral, humanistic standards, while admirable, shows how tenuous, even flippant, religious beliefs can be. How incongruent with the search for Truth, when truths can be rewritten or discarded by the whim of a single prophet.
Yet if we were to ignore the history of religion, to open the doors for future discourse, would we not also be turning a blind eye to the possible future pitfalls that has so marred its bloody past? Is it just to say, "Let us forget about the massacres. Forget about 9/11. Forget the Spanish Inquisition. Forget the Holocaust. Crusades? What Crusades? We will pretend the Saxon Wars never happened." And instead say, "Let us focus on how religion can enhance our understanding of the Truth, ignoring its shady past. Let us now find a way for science and religion to co-exist, in a civilised form"?
How is it possible to talk about the honest intent of religion when, when presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the minds of the faithful do not budge to adopt and adapt new Truths? When, instead, they adamantly refuse to believe that which is in complete contrast to words written hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago? Or even flatly deny the outcomes of present day experiments, which also, in remarkable contrast, undermine stodgy beliefs?
Consider the results posted in the April 2006 issue of American Heart Journal. The Templeton Foundation tested, in a double-blind, controlled experiement whether or not prayer improved (or otherwise affected) the health of sick individuals. Just over 1800 people, who underwent coronary bypass surgery, were split into three groups. Group 1 received prayers, yet did not know. Group 2 received no prayers, yet did not know (the control group). Group 3 received prayers, yet knew.
Groups 1 and 2 held no significant difference in recovery time (no surprise, really). However, Group 3 held significantly more complications than the others. Dawkins suggests that the most likely explanation was not that God was smiting them, or that God could somehow see through the test (and thus continued His oddly vacuous "testing of faith") but rather they suffered from "performance anxiety". However, the actual results are beside the point.
The Templeton Foundation saw a means to put prayer within the realm of science. It funded and successfully executed a double-blind study to examine the effect of prayer. The study very well could have yielded a positive result. The study could have established a link that prayer has a positive effect on the sick. That, possibly, Something "out there" is tuned in to the thoughts of various humans spread out across the land.
And had such an experiement shown a positive outcome, do you think that any religious individual would have "dismissed it on the grounds that scientific research has no bearing on religious matters?" I highly doubt it.
Of course, such an experiment will have little effect on the faithful. As Dawkins so wonderfully posits: Religious pundits "know" from personal experience that prayer works, as they have seen it work (anecdotes are scientifically invalid, by the way), so if "evidence fails to show it, we'll just soldier on until finally we get the result we want."
Religious zealots have shown, time and time again, that they have no interest in, nor respect for, Truth. And without truth there can be honest discourse.
So why even pretend?
Towards the Light
Posted by
Michael K Holleran
at
2007-09-28 05:41
Dear Dave,
It is unfair to criticize religion for not adapting and questioning when new evidence arises, and then turn around and criticize it for doing exactly that: adapting and questioning when goaded by fresh experience, whatever the source. We do indeed deepen in our understanding of just what the Scriptures contain. In this process, pace Dawkins, we do not "pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories"; we accept it all as true and truly symbolic: a parable and paradigm of God's dealings with the human race, leading them from the inevitable obtuseness and obfuscation of the psyche that first received and expressed the message, and moving towards ever greater transparency as the saga unfolds. And it continues even today. Already around the year 600, in his famous homilies on Ezekiel, Gregory the Great noted that, because of their intrinsic richness and depth, the Scriptures progressively conform to the level of understanding and maturity of the hearer. And the Kabbalah has thought to plumb the profundities of Scripture by interpreting the whole of it primarily as a mystical allegory already for millennia. It was joined in this by Christian bishops and spiritual writers in the early centuries of our era who plugged into this current of thought, notably Ambrose in the West and Gregory of Nyssa in the East. And, incidentally, all language is ultimately symbolic, including that of math and science. Yet we don't "write it off" because of that, but use it with a chastened recognition of its limitations.
I do indeed advise going beyond the mistakes of the past, perhaps attempting to understand and even forgive them within the limits of their socio-political context, as tragic episodes along the arduous path towards the evolution of consciousness; but, I most certainly do not advise that we "forget" them or "turn a blind eye". On the contrary. As the saying goes, whoever ignores the errors of the past is doomed to repeat them.
The Templeton Foundation experiment was well-intentioned, but, in my view, grievously misguided. One cannot measure the value or meaning of prayer according to the number of people physically healed of some disease, as opposed to members of some other group. Such results were never promised us. And you mention yourself the complicating factor of "performance anxiety". In any case, at its most profound and authentic level, prayer is not about "getting results". It is an alignment of being, not an asking for things; a gift of oneself, not a gift for oneself.
It is unfair to criticize religion for not adapting and questioning when new evidence arises, and then turn around and criticize it for doing exactly that: adapting and questioning when goaded by fresh experience, whatever the source. We do indeed deepen in our understanding of just what the Scriptures contain. In this process, pace Dawkins, we do not "pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories"; we accept it all as true and truly symbolic: a parable and paradigm of God's dealings with the human race, leading them from the inevitable obtuseness and obfuscation of the psyche that first received and expressed the message, and moving towards ever greater transparency as the saga unfolds. And it continues even today. Already around the year 600, in his famous homilies on Ezekiel, Gregory the Great noted that, because of their intrinsic richness and depth, the Scriptures progressively conform to the level of understanding and maturity of the hearer. And the Kabbalah has thought to plumb the profundities of Scripture by interpreting the whole of it primarily as a mystical allegory already for millennia. It was joined in this by Christian bishops and spiritual writers in the early centuries of our era who plugged into this current of thought, notably Ambrose in the West and Gregory of Nyssa in the East. And, incidentally, all language is ultimately symbolic, including that of math and science. Yet we don't "write it off" because of that, but use it with a chastened recognition of its limitations.
I do indeed advise going beyond the mistakes of the past, perhaps attempting to understand and even forgive them within the limits of their socio-political context, as tragic episodes along the arduous path towards the evolution of consciousness; but, I most certainly do not advise that we "forget" them or "turn a blind eye". On the contrary. As the saying goes, whoever ignores the errors of the past is doomed to repeat them.
The Templeton Foundation experiment was well-intentioned, but, in my view, grievously misguided. One cannot measure the value or meaning of prayer according to the number of people physically healed of some disease, as opposed to members of some other group. Such results were never promised us. And you mention yourself the complicating factor of "performance anxiety". In any case, at its most profound and authentic level, prayer is not about "getting results". It is an alignment of being, not an asking for things; a gift of oneself, not a gift for oneself.
Blindness in General
Posted by
Mr. Hartnell
at
2007-09-28 08:06
What
is true? I have been asking this question for ages and have come to
realize that Truth is about as easy to grasp as the pot of gold at the
end of a rainbow. We see the rainbow alright, but we can’t get to the
pot of gold at the end. Do you know Truth completely? Does anyone? Life
is a mystery. And this is what makes it so interesting. If Truth was so
easy or if it could even be put into words, someone would probably have
written a definitive book about it.
Oscar Wilde once said in his profound wit, “Even things that are true cannot be proven.”
With that off my chest, I will get down to business.
First, I would like to thank Father Michael for such a wonderful introduction to a fascinating and very important discussion.
Second, third, fourth, etc… I love the brilliant point Dawkins makes in his book The God Delusion. Religious people, Dawkins notes, “pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, and which bits to write off as symbols or allegories.” But, I think he displays a certain ignorance by limiting this little observation to religious people. What he is describing is not a religious phenomenon at all—it is a human one. We all choose what to believe. As humans we are constantly accepting or rejecting things. Mr. Jarvis, by talking about religious people with a sharp note of disdain and condescension—or at least without respect—is acting in the very same way stereotypical evangelical Christians—who are probably not nearly as well educated—act. As if only an Atheist possesses “Truth”—everyone else is an enemy of truth and has had a huge sham pulled over their eyes. This is intellectual arrogance—and it is a type of ignorance.
Ignorance is independent of creed. It has nothing to do with religion.
No one is completely above blindness.
My biggest qualm with Mr. Jarvis, to whom I am replying to, is that before we even open the discussion, or symposium, he is hostile and, in my eyes, he is very intolerant. He writes, “How is it possible to talk about the honest intent of religion when, when presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the minds of the faithful do not budge to adopt new Truths?” The way he phrases this and the paragraph that follows shows that he isn’t even ready to listen if one tried to answer that question. A mind as closed as the ones he accuses. It is hateful and degrading of the intelligence of people who are ready to engage in a discussion…not a rant. People like me.
I believe in God (I didn’t always and acted much like Mr. Jarvis at times), and I think science and even the Christian Religion are completely compatible. I believe in evolution. I am also extremely well educated. In my brain, Science and God coexist extremely well. We are here to talk about deep existential questions, and they are often fairly personal in a way, so let us be nice, and lets try to get away from generalizing too much. Comments like “Religious zealots have shown, time and time again, that they have no interest in, nor respect for, Truth. And without truth there cannot be honest discourse.” Blatant and semi-insulting generalizations like these get us nowhere and insure that there will be very little honest discourse. For what should be a discussion, it would be wiser to listen. The funny thing is that I have heard a southern bible-belt preacher say almost exactly the same thing, except he used the word “ATHEISTS.” ‘Atheists care little for Truth. They feed on lies, lies, LIES. Without truth they live lies, lies, LIES.’—Unatributed angry man. Point being, both these statements are false, and I hope that we can refrain from being intolerant of one another and that we may be humble readers of what we each write. After all, I think we all have the same goal, “to pursue Truth to the best we can.”
Listening to the other side is a good thing.
You might learn for instance that most Evangelical Christians (aside from Kurt Wise) don’t have degrees in science, and frankly they care about different questions than we do. But for the most part when you really get to know some of them they are often nice people; and even have some good points to make if one is humble enough to listen. The same is true for Atheists, Orthodox Jews, Buddhists, etc.
You don’t have to buy it, but lets at least give people some respect. And Listen.
Currently there is this idea that “Religion” is Dangerous, as demonstrated by 9/11 the crusades et cetera. Mr. Jarvis states this is why we shouldn’t listen. I would like to challenge this point. In fact, I use to think that religion was dangerous. But this not so. The problem is people. The problem is not Religion. It is not lack there-of. The problem is people. There are Atheists that kill. There are Christians that Kill. There are [insert creed] who Kill. With that said there are certain ideas that are Dangerous, for example: Racism, Bigotry, Extremism, etc. But I will say again. The problem is people.
I talk about this because playing the Blame game over these things is not a very constructive discussion.
Finally, as for modern theologians, (and many of the people probably reading and responding to these blogs), ‘discarding parts of the Scripture that no longer align with modern moral, humanistic standards (or modern science).’ I don’t think this is true. The whole point for the Scriptures to exist today is because they are still profound and possibly even more enlightened then contemporary thought (or at least this is how many believers would fell). Otherwise they wouldn’t be bother to defend them in the first place. “Interpretation” is a better word than “discarding.” A wise and rational person looks at scripture with all knowledge available to him, because the Bible is an old mysterious book that is possibly even more complicated than the human brain. And VERY old. Naturally when people read any piece of literature, we interpret it. When we are presented with new information i.e. Evolutionary Theory, we often have to reinterpret hoping to get closer and closer to the Truth, that elusive pot of gold. Copernicus was revolutionary in realizing that the Earth wasn’t at the center of the universe, and yet his understanding was wrong. Later scientists had to make changes and add things on, step-by-step inching closer to the truth. It is interesting to look at ourselves when we were young and see ourselves now. It often shows (at least in my experience) how “tenuous, even flippant” our beliefs can be.
So lets try to listen and be nice and ask questions in pursuit of the ever-illusive TRUTH. Quoting the author of Jesus Fish and Darwin Fish, “If people knew what kind of claims each side can effectively advance, they may be more adept at recognizing irresponsible claims coming from either side.” Therefore let us listen… we might ALL learn something.
--Mr. Hartnell
P.S. A student gave me a link the other day and I found it very interesting. If you humble your opinions for a while it was really quite fascinating and gave me something to think about. To listen you have to click on Dr. John Walton’s picture. Enjoy!
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html
Oscar Wilde once said in his profound wit, “Even things that are true cannot be proven.”
With that off my chest, I will get down to business.
First, I would like to thank Father Michael for such a wonderful introduction to a fascinating and very important discussion.
Second, third, fourth, etc… I love the brilliant point Dawkins makes in his book The God Delusion. Religious people, Dawkins notes, “pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, and which bits to write off as symbols or allegories.” But, I think he displays a certain ignorance by limiting this little observation to religious people. What he is describing is not a religious phenomenon at all—it is a human one. We all choose what to believe. As humans we are constantly accepting or rejecting things. Mr. Jarvis, by talking about religious people with a sharp note of disdain and condescension—or at least without respect—is acting in the very same way stereotypical evangelical Christians—who are probably not nearly as well educated—act. As if only an Atheist possesses “Truth”—everyone else is an enemy of truth and has had a huge sham pulled over their eyes. This is intellectual arrogance—and it is a type of ignorance.
Ignorance is independent of creed. It has nothing to do with religion.
No one is completely above blindness.
My biggest qualm with Mr. Jarvis, to whom I am replying to, is that before we even open the discussion, or symposium, he is hostile and, in my eyes, he is very intolerant. He writes, “How is it possible to talk about the honest intent of religion when, when presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the minds of the faithful do not budge to adopt new Truths?” The way he phrases this and the paragraph that follows shows that he isn’t even ready to listen if one tried to answer that question. A mind as closed as the ones he accuses. It is hateful and degrading of the intelligence of people who are ready to engage in a discussion…not a rant. People like me.
I believe in God (I didn’t always and acted much like Mr. Jarvis at times), and I think science and even the Christian Religion are completely compatible. I believe in evolution. I am also extremely well educated. In my brain, Science and God coexist extremely well. We are here to talk about deep existential questions, and they are often fairly personal in a way, so let us be nice, and lets try to get away from generalizing too much. Comments like “Religious zealots have shown, time and time again, that they have no interest in, nor respect for, Truth. And without truth there cannot be honest discourse.” Blatant and semi-insulting generalizations like these get us nowhere and insure that there will be very little honest discourse. For what should be a discussion, it would be wiser to listen. The funny thing is that I have heard a southern bible-belt preacher say almost exactly the same thing, except he used the word “ATHEISTS.” ‘Atheists care little for Truth. They feed on lies, lies, LIES. Without truth they live lies, lies, LIES.’—Unatributed angry man. Point being, both these statements are false, and I hope that we can refrain from being intolerant of one another and that we may be humble readers of what we each write. After all, I think we all have the same goal, “to pursue Truth to the best we can.”
Listening to the other side is a good thing.
You might learn for instance that most Evangelical Christians (aside from Kurt Wise) don’t have degrees in science, and frankly they care about different questions than we do. But for the most part when you really get to know some of them they are often nice people; and even have some good points to make if one is humble enough to listen. The same is true for Atheists, Orthodox Jews, Buddhists, etc.
You don’t have to buy it, but lets at least give people some respect. And Listen.
Currently there is this idea that “Religion” is Dangerous, as demonstrated by 9/11 the crusades et cetera. Mr. Jarvis states this is why we shouldn’t listen. I would like to challenge this point. In fact, I use to think that religion was dangerous. But this not so. The problem is people. The problem is not Religion. It is not lack there-of. The problem is people. There are Atheists that kill. There are Christians that Kill. There are [insert creed] who Kill. With that said there are certain ideas that are Dangerous, for example: Racism, Bigotry, Extremism, etc. But I will say again. The problem is people.
I talk about this because playing the Blame game over these things is not a very constructive discussion.
Finally, as for modern theologians, (and many of the people probably reading and responding to these blogs), ‘discarding parts of the Scripture that no longer align with modern moral, humanistic standards (or modern science).’ I don’t think this is true. The whole point for the Scriptures to exist today is because they are still profound and possibly even more enlightened then contemporary thought (or at least this is how many believers would fell). Otherwise they wouldn’t be bother to defend them in the first place. “Interpretation” is a better word than “discarding.” A wise and rational person looks at scripture with all knowledge available to him, because the Bible is an old mysterious book that is possibly even more complicated than the human brain. And VERY old. Naturally when people read any piece of literature, we interpret it. When we are presented with new information i.e. Evolutionary Theory, we often have to reinterpret hoping to get closer and closer to the Truth, that elusive pot of gold. Copernicus was revolutionary in realizing that the Earth wasn’t at the center of the universe, and yet his understanding was wrong. Later scientists had to make changes and add things on, step-by-step inching closer to the truth. It is interesting to look at ourselves when we were young and see ourselves now. It often shows (at least in my experience) how “tenuous, even flippant” our beliefs can be.
So lets try to listen and be nice and ask questions in pursuit of the ever-illusive TRUTH. Quoting the author of Jesus Fish and Darwin Fish, “If people knew what kind of claims each side can effectively advance, they may be more adept at recognizing irresponsible claims coming from either side.” Therefore let us listen… we might ALL learn something.
--Mr. Hartnell
P.S. A student gave me a link the other day and I found it very interesting. If you humble your opinions for a while it was really quite fascinating and gave me something to think about. To listen you have to click on Dr. John Walton’s picture. Enjoy!
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html
Some Comments
Posted by
Ross
at
2008-01-10 08:21
Mr.
Hartnell writes: "If Truth was so easy or if it could even be put into
words, someone would probably have written a definitive book about it."
If i'm not mistaken, don't christians make the claim that the bible IS the definitive word of god? Meaning that the bible IS Truth? And what about the Koran. Dont they feel as strongly about their book? The list goes on for every religion. Every religion claims to be the right one. what would be the point of being part of that religion if you didn't believe it was right.
I disagree with your idea that its not the religion but the people who are the problem. You say: :"...there are certain ideas that are Dangerous, for example: Racism, Bigotry, Extremism, etc. But I will say again. The problem is people." Where do people get these ideas from? Extremism is a direct cause of blindly believing in your creed. Religion is the foothold of many of these problems.
Some think that a world without religion would be chaos. With religion out of the picture, i see less reasons to harbor animosity toward others.
My last comment is this: You say you believe in both god and evolution? How could those possibly coexist peacefully? Evolution contradicts the story of adam and eve.
Science has provided solid evidence that the world is older than 6,000 years. Science has proven that this world was not created for us, but that we are a product of the world. If the bible is the word of god. Then god has seriously mislead you. Realize that the bible was written by man in a time when he didn't even realize THE WORLD ISNT FLAT. Im sorry if it seems like i'm attacking you but i cant see how religion and science can coexist for much longer. they are two separate interpretations of the world.
If i'm not mistaken, don't christians make the claim that the bible IS the definitive word of god? Meaning that the bible IS Truth? And what about the Koran. Dont they feel as strongly about their book? The list goes on for every religion. Every religion claims to be the right one. what would be the point of being part of that religion if you didn't believe it was right.
I disagree with your idea that its not the religion but the people who are the problem. You say: :"...there are certain ideas that are Dangerous, for example: Racism, Bigotry, Extremism, etc. But I will say again. The problem is people." Where do people get these ideas from? Extremism is a direct cause of blindly believing in your creed. Religion is the foothold of many of these problems.
Some think that a world without religion would be chaos. With religion out of the picture, i see less reasons to harbor animosity toward others.
My last comment is this: You say you believe in both god and evolution? How could those possibly coexist peacefully? Evolution contradicts the story of adam and eve.
Science has provided solid evidence that the world is older than 6,000 years. Science has proven that this world was not created for us, but that we are a product of the world. If the bible is the word of god. Then god has seriously mislead you. Realize that the bible was written by man in a time when he didn't even realize THE WORLD ISNT FLAT. Im sorry if it seems like i'm attacking you but i cant see how religion and science can coexist for much longer. they are two separate interpretations of the world.
.....what do think its about
Posted by
Ross
at
2007-10-10 04:49
Heres
my take on this issue. Most religions (if not all) are wrong about god.
Why? Because you cant ALL be right. So how about all of the religions
are wrong. I cant disprove that god exists. But to think that a god
listens to YOUR specific needs is extremely conceded. If god did create
the universe, he-she-it did it much longer than 6 thousand years ago
and at this point its just watching the entertainment. I personally
live my life believing that i am a product of evolution. I do not
believe in the man made concept of god because i do not need faith
based comfort to feel good about myself. I have friends and family that
care about me and im overwhelmed with joy at the idea that i control my
future. Every second in life is precious because we only get one life.
They call it death for a reason. Theres nothing after it. The concept
of an afterlife is persistent in almost all religions because it is a
comforting thought.....but not the truth. Please people.....religion is
based on faith in comforting ideals. Science is based on research and
concrete slap you in the face proof. I know its a hard pill to swallow.
but its easier to see the beauty in life when its not a test for
something you hope comes after........... it just is.
Not Right, Not Wrong
Posted by
Michael K Holleran
at
2007-10-13 16:40
A response to Ross' comment:
I remember being vastly impressed at a social gathering a few years ago when a young woman, an artist and an agnostic, sighed and remarked: "Wouldn't it be a lovely world if every religion began by saying: 'We are basically wrong, but...'". I couldn't agree more; for such a stance would completely deflate the defensive dogmatism of many so-called religious people. Of course all religions are "wrong", to the extent that no religious discourse, no matter what its credentials, is adequate to the unfathomable mystery of God. On the other hand, and by the same token, at least all the great religious traditions are also right, to the extent that they are prismatic reflections of that same mystery, and can afford us keys of entry into its splendor.
As to the purpose of religion: let me state emphatically, if not once and for all, that religion is not, or should not be, primarily about where the world came from, nor even about what sort of "after-life" is promised (a singularly unappealing phrase, much like "after-taste"). As one Catholic priest and contemporary spiritual writer put it, genuine religion is about what we do with our pain; its "comfort" should be available now. More positively, it is about how we can live this present moment in the richest and fullest possible way (and what that even means), and thus begin to realize what Christians call the Kingdom of God. Any continuation beyond physical death can only be a consequence of this, and should never be the focus of concern.
I remember being vastly impressed at a social gathering a few years ago when a young woman, an artist and an agnostic, sighed and remarked: "Wouldn't it be a lovely world if every religion began by saying: 'We are basically wrong, but...'". I couldn't agree more; for such a stance would completely deflate the defensive dogmatism of many so-called religious people. Of course all religions are "wrong", to the extent that no religious discourse, no matter what its credentials, is adequate to the unfathomable mystery of God. On the other hand, and by the same token, at least all the great religious traditions are also right, to the extent that they are prismatic reflections of that same mystery, and can afford us keys of entry into its splendor.
As to the purpose of religion: let me state emphatically, if not once and for all, that religion is not, or should not be, primarily about where the world came from, nor even about what sort of "after-life" is promised (a singularly unappealing phrase, much like "after-taste"). As one Catholic priest and contemporary spiritual writer put it, genuine religion is about what we do with our pain; its "comfort" should be available now. More positively, it is about how we can live this present moment in the richest and fullest possible way (and what that even means), and thus begin to realize what Christians call the Kingdom of God. Any continuation beyond physical death can only be a consequence of this, and should never be the focus of concern.
P.S.
Posted by
Michael K Holleran
at
2007-10-14 00:38
Lest
I appear disingenuous, or be misunderstood: obviously, as a Catholic
priest, I profess to have found in the Church, and, above all, in the
vibrantly alive person of Jesus, the most direct and inclusive access
to the mystery of God, which I humbly invite others to explore if so
inspired. Still, as I remarked in the introduction to my blog, I have
the utmost respect and admiration for the spiritual journey of every
person, and a genuine curiosity about their adventures and discoveries
along the path of their search for Truth. Other traditions have
revealed their wealth and amazing depths to me as well. Moreoever, my
point above is that, as Jesus Himself explained when questioned about
his teaching in parables, every human formulation necessarily both
hides and reveals, and can never be simply identical to the mystery to
which it points. Even the Humanity of Jesus, as the great early
Councils taught, is not God, but God's.
a contemplative union of Science and Spirituality
Posted by
Rev. Bosco Peters
at
2007-12-11 19:18
I am delighted today to have fallen over this blog.
My first degree is a Science degree, my second degree is one in Theology.
I love Fr. Michael's description of his stance being neither conservative nor liberal - but contemplative. There is so much that can be learnt by living that concept.
A lot of the discussion has been around the interpretation of scriptures. An example might help. We pick up the newspaper daily and are so agile in our interpretation of the variety of genres in it - it is no effort for us to know what is a news article, what is a joke, a letter to the editor, an opinion piece, an advertisement. And we naturally adjust accordingly.
The scriptures, like my example of the newspaper, is also constantly changing genres - but we are not as agile to recognise the varying literary styles. When newspapers are no more, future students may struggle to interpret the particular genre of newspapers from our day. They may interpret them incorrectly, missing subtleties we take for granted. Similarly, most of us when we read a story with a talking snake realise this is a fable. There are some, clearly, who don't - they insist a talking snake is an historical event not that long ago. I might be wrong. They might be wrong. I acknowledge that my judging of what the genre is in that ancient text might be mistaken.
Another thread here has been about the powerful danger of religion. I would be surprised if it were otherwise. All great and powerful things can be used for powerful evil. Sex, money, authority - all wonderful parts of our human life - all able to be powerfully damaging in human life. Religion - like electricity, and a rushing river, can be a power for good. And it can be a power for evil.
Finally metaphor. We humans live in a metaphorical landscape. The deeper the reality - the greater the metaphorical construct. And the less we can prove things. Love, beauty, goodness, emotions - all expressed metaphorically: my other half, deeply in love, heart-warming, depressed,...
Science and spirituality (and its scaffolding - religion) are not opposed - they are united in Truth. Contemplatively.
Advent blessings
Bosco Peters
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/
My first degree is a Science degree, my second degree is one in Theology.
I love Fr. Michael's description of his stance being neither conservative nor liberal - but contemplative. There is so much that can be learnt by living that concept.
A lot of the discussion has been around the interpretation of scriptures. An example might help. We pick up the newspaper daily and are so agile in our interpretation of the variety of genres in it - it is no effort for us to know what is a news article, what is a joke, a letter to the editor, an opinion piece, an advertisement. And we naturally adjust accordingly.
The scriptures, like my example of the newspaper, is also constantly changing genres - but we are not as agile to recognise the varying literary styles. When newspapers are no more, future students may struggle to interpret the particular genre of newspapers from our day. They may interpret them incorrectly, missing subtleties we take for granted. Similarly, most of us when we read a story with a talking snake realise this is a fable. There are some, clearly, who don't - they insist a talking snake is an historical event not that long ago. I might be wrong. They might be wrong. I acknowledge that my judging of what the genre is in that ancient text might be mistaken.
Another thread here has been about the powerful danger of religion. I would be surprised if it were otherwise. All great and powerful things can be used for powerful evil. Sex, money, authority - all wonderful parts of our human life - all able to be powerfully damaging in human life. Religion - like electricity, and a rushing river, can be a power for good. And it can be a power for evil.
Finally metaphor. We humans live in a metaphorical landscape. The deeper the reality - the greater the metaphorical construct. And the less we can prove things. Love, beauty, goodness, emotions - all expressed metaphorically: my other half, deeply in love, heart-warming, depressed,...
Science and spirituality (and its scaffolding - religion) are not opposed - they are united in Truth. Contemplatively.
Advent blessings
Bosco Peters
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/
The fishes cant live together (for now)
Posted by
Ross
at
2008-01-08 09:52
In
response to the below comment. It is my opinion that the jesus fish and
the Darwin cannot live in harmony (and therefore science and religion)
because they are two seperate explanations for the fundamental
questions humans want answered. They are two distinct ways of looking
at life. Religious belief of the beginning of the world is simple. God
did it about 6,000 years ago. Darwinian theory along with evolution
believes that the universe formed billions of years ago and life
evolved over billions of years. The only way a jesus fish and a darwin
fish could live on the same bumper is if the core beliefs of one or the
other (religion or Dawinian theory) changes their beliefs. These ideas
are incompatible at their core.
Father Michael, heres a question for you:
Do you believe the world was created 6,000 years ago?
As a man of science and rational thought, i find it incredibly difficult to believe that the bible is the literal word of god when science has proven that idea wrong. It is my opinion that in order for science and religion to live together. Religion needs to re-evaluate its belief that the world is 6,000 years old. I would be fine with the idea that god created the big bang (which is a widely accepted theory among the scientific community) because thats as far as science can currently trace back the exsistence of the universe.
Please comment
Father Michael, heres a question for you:
Do you believe the world was created 6,000 years ago?
As a man of science and rational thought, i find it incredibly difficult to believe that the bible is the literal word of god when science has proven that idea wrong. It is my opinion that in order for science and religion to live together. Religion needs to re-evaluate its belief that the world is 6,000 years old. I would be fine with the idea that god created the big bang (which is a widely accepted theory among the scientific community) because thats as far as science can currently trace back the exsistence of the universe.
Please comment
Jesus Fish and Darwin Fish