James McGrath has recently blogged on an e-newsletter now online from Michael Dowd called "the Evolutionary Times." It seems interesting - Michael and his wife Connie Barlow are certainly enthusiastic about evolution! Ms. Barlow is a Unitarian-Universalist, according to the website, which is nice to know - we UUs are very sensible about evolution. The lessons in their "Great Story" section of the site seem very intense about teaching science as part of religious training. The religion here seems very naturalistic - very nature based.
I have mixed feelings about intensely combining science and religion. On the one hand, religion that takes science seriously and is not threatened by it is obviously a good thing. I remember two religious epiphanies of my youth connected to science. One was contemplating evolution - I remember sitting around and staring at my dog when I was a pre-teen and wondering what the heck it meant that he and I had a common ancestor at one time. (He would usually look away after a time and never gave me any feedback on the subject.) But I would think about the similarities in our eyes and (sometimes) our behavior and it "freaked me out" a bit at times. Realizing that he and I were that closely connected was a kind of epiphany. Another thing was hearing Carl Sagan say on "Cosmos" that we are all "star-stuff" and looking outside at the stars and being overwhelmed a bit by what that implied. Part of me was formed in one of those? The universe is huge, but in some ways it is kind of a small place if even I and the stars are related!
On the other hand, as I have gotten older and I have begun to wonder, is religion really about those things? One of my attractions to the Tillich approach I've been blogging about is that while it doesn't try to get in science's way by making claims about biology or physics, it also can safely ignore (to a certain extent) those sciences. After all, if religion really is about personal salvation (in some sense of that term) and finding ways to follow more perfectly the "Golden Rule" can it really make all that much difference what model of cosmology is correct? Whether or not the universe expands forever or someday experiences a "great crunch" is a fascinating question for cosmology - but can my personal salvation really be dependent on it? I'm not saying that Dowd or anyone else claims it is, but I am just thinking out loud about whether these areas really speak closely to one another, or need to.
The facts that all life on earth is related and we really are born out of stars in a literal sense, are fascinating background information to establish our inter-connectedness and so on. And contemplation of the universe, its incredible size, beauty, complexity, etc. can be inspiring. But I wonder if religion, at its core, is something more along the lines of a psychological state of mind - an orientation towards the meaning of our being that uses symbols which don't have to correspond to literal truths about anything to be effective. If so I would think that any religious experience or practice worth having or doing would drive us to be curious about our physical universe and lead us to explore it with passion, but wouldn't necessarily be based upon a particular theory or fact as its foundation.
But it is late, and I am rambling. Anyway, there is a lot to think about fishing around the newsletter and the related website for the book "Thank God for Evolution." If you are interested in the science and religion intersection, it is well worth the visit.
Almost a Literalist
-
I think this is one of the best cartoons on so-called Biblical literalism I
have ever seen (HT Experimental Theology). You may need to click through to
get...
9 hours ago
2 comments:
You said... "I wonder if religion, at its core, is something more along the lines of a psychological state of mind - an orientation towards the meaning of our being that uses symbols which don't have to correspond to literal truths about anything to be effective." And, I think you're right. I started thinking about my mother the other day; she passed away some years back. I realized that if I was able to explicitly and exhaustively describe every last action of hers for me, and every last quality act and motive of her life, would it adequately, of even at all describe what I think about her. No! Impossible. Which is the case for all our relationships, isn't it? Parent/child. Lovers. And, doesn't this prove what you are conjecturing? If the literal truth means nothing, is inadequate, beggarly. Then, doesn't this demonstrate that our poetic, internal, religious, philosophical feelings do not and cannot correspond to listeral truths?
In this modern scientific age, we continually try to digitize. Fortunately, we are still analog! That's why we love Robert Frost. And, our mothers and lovers and children!
Wade,
Thanks for commenting on my newsetter.
if you like Tillich and Sagan, you'll love my book. Connie worked with me very closely on it. As a science writer - http://www.thegreatstory.org/CB-writings.html - she just didn't want to be listed as co-author (I discuss this in my Acknowledments, at the end.) Connie and I have presented the material contained within TGFE in more than 300 UU churches and fellowships, plus in hundreds of Christian, Unity, secular, and anti-religious settings as well.
Religion, as I see it, is about "re-connecting" or 're-linking" with Ultimacy (Source, Self, Nature, Mystery, God, Goddess, Great Spirit, etc - different traditions use different language and metaphors.)
Descriptions of literal truth (what I call 'day language') are, as you and Cynomys Jack both rightly note, not necessarily inspiring. And just as we humans (and all mammals) also have a night experience (dreaming), we will always use metaphorical, subjectively meaningful 'night language' to express our deep feelings. Both are essential for us as human beings. (I spend a lot of time with this distinction in my book.)
One of my favorite quotes, from Joel Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams, co-authors of The View from the Center of the Universe(which I highly recommend) is this: "This kind of integration of science and meaning is considered by many scientists to be a danger to science, but a science that doesn't consider its own meaning is a danger to everyone else. Interpreting modern cosmology is - if anything is - a sacred responsibility."
Thanks again for your post!
~ Michael
Post a Comment