More on the Science-n-religion question
Thomas Dixon commented on one of the recent posts on this issue, and I thought it only fair to make his comment more visible, since that post is now oldish, and I also hope he will comment further.
Dixon’s comment:
I’ve been dismayed by some of the misinformation going around in the wake of the recent BBC Four programme I presented and a related online article I wrote for the BBC News magazine. Just for the record, I am a historian, not a theologian (although my first degree was indeed in Theology and Religious Studies), and membership of ISSR is open to anyone who has made a scholarly study of relations between science and religion, as I have. As I explain in the Preface to my ‘Very Short Introduction’, my aim is to use the history and philosophy of science to shed light on this topic, and not to try to persuade anyone to become either religious or atheistic. My own approach is entirely agnostic.
I hope I didn’t give any misinformation; I don’t think I did. I quoted the OUP page that said Dixon is a Lecturer in History at Queen Mary, University of London, which I assumed would imply that he’s a historian, not a theologian. I further quoted that page that said he is a member of ISSR, and I then went on to give further information about what ISSR is. I think ISSR is a bit of a stealth organization in the usual Templeton fashion, but that doesn’t mean that its members are necessarily tainted or to blame or anything like that – that’s part of the point of the stealth: people don’t always know what agendas may be in play. People may also be aware of the agenda and simply think it’s harmless, and/or an ordinary academic agenda like any other.
In case Thomas Dixon would like to comment again, here’s the question I would like to ask. I never thought the goal was to persuade anyone to become either religious or atheistic; I think Templeton’s goal is to persuade more or less everyone that there is no conflict between religion and science. Is your approach to that entirely agnostic?
It looks like Templeton are trying to get ‘Science and Religion’ established as if they go together like scones and clotted cream, when the opposite is true. I recently blogged about this ‘theo-science’, and noted a number of instances of people writing on ‘science and religion’ where it was plain they were simply talking about religion, then science. It’s amazing how often Templeton lurk in the background – yes, perhaps in the distant background, but that’s the effect of sowing little bundles of money around to encourage this notion.
For me, it’s damaging to science; look at the ‘Faraday Papers’ from the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, for example.
I should say that any one person who I think is guilty of this is more than likely acting in good faith – this is about an intellectual environment. Just as we talk about the Overton Window, I’m sure theists with an agenda are keen to move the window in their favour.
In the Preface to his VSI to Science and Religion, Dixon writes:
Well, I have downloaded the book to my Kindle, and I will let you know what I think, but the challenge, anyway, to be better informed, is one that I am willing to take up. At the same time Sam Harris’ new book has just arrived, so I will be busy, since I also have two or three others on the go. I really must learn to organise my reading, but there is so much to read, and time seems to be running out!
Thank you Mark for your reference to the Faraday Papers. I took a glance at one or two, and they might be suitable means to raise my temperature a degree or two, and send my blood pressure through the roof. I’ve got the McGrath on Dawkins one and I will have a look at that too.
But I am glad, Ophelia, that you put Thomas Dixon’s comment up, because when I read it a few days ago, I wondered what his answer might be to a similarly worded question. So I hope Thomas Dixon will respond, and open up the conversation again. I think the real issue here is organisations like Templeton — and Templeton in particular, of course — which do have a definite indeological slant, and try to hide that slant behind the language of the academy. I am also concerned that some historians working this particular area are sometimes too ready to whitewash actions by the church which amount to obstruction and even threat. It is important to remember that, while the Vatican is prepared to accept evolution, it is still not prepared to accept the evolution of human beings. Besides, I find it hard to accept the contention that a church which put Hume’s opera omnia on the index of prohibited books, as well as Kant’s Kritik der Reinen Vernuft, can be thought as, in any degree, open to science. Even if we can read the Galileo affair in a way that is less compromising for the church, as some historians have claimed, it is not clear to me that this lets them of the hook to any significant degree, in light of such things as the Index, the oath condemning modernism, and other uses to which the church’s authority has been put. However, now that Dixon has the price of a beer out of me, I will go off and read his book to my edification, I hope, and to the task of becoming better informed about these matters.
Ah, I see I was ambiguous. When I said: “I am also concerned that some historians working this particular area are sometimes too ready to whitewash actions by the church which amount to obstruction and even threat,” I meant obstruction (and threat) by the church and not by the historian. One has to mind one’s clauses. It is important to remember that men like Hume published certain things with great reluctance, and did not publish, in their lifetimes, certain things at all (such as the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion), because blasphemy and other laws prottecting religion were still working with their usual vigour. Kant received a peremptory letter from the King, showing his displeasure with some of his work, and this had a definite restraining effect upon his freedom of thought.
But you are a theologian. I don’t think that is misinformation. You emphasise at the start of BBC four programme that you’re a historian of science, which is true but not the entire truth is it? You never said you were also a theologian.
And you claim to be agnostic, but agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, which is it? I assume theist, because that is an awful lot of study on the premise: God exists to waste if you’re an atheist. Or, you may very well have changed your mind while studying theology and become an atheist. I don’t know, because you’re vague about it. Agnosticism is vagueness. I like clarity.
What is clear is that there were two ‘waves’ that attacked science: Creationism and then Intelligent Design. Now some of us have suspicions about a third wave that is attacking science: agenda-driven theology, one main source from which appears to originate from the Templeton Foundation. The aim, appears to be, to try and merge theology with science. This is all one-sided, because science isn’t interested in religion.
In your programme, you chose to use Biologist, Kenneth Miller a Roman Catholic who sees no conflict between science and faith. You also said that many Christians see no conflict between science and their faith. That’s all very well, and some atheists don’t think there is a conflict either. But some atheists do see a rather obvious conflict, because religion constantly attacks science. Creationism and Intelligent Design are two very powerful examples of why religion has it in for science.
In your BBC news article, you paint the same lovely picture, that high profile scientists have no conflict with their beliefs and their scientific work.
I find it interesting that you’re a member of the ISSR, which is affiliated with the Templeton Foundation, On its About ISSR page it says:
While you say:
Which seems a bit of a contradiction to me. So we’re back to more vagueness and less clarity.
What is also very clear, is that while the ISSR seem happy to have a dialogue between Religion and Science (however one-sided) the ISSR certainly has no love for uber atheists (such as us):
http://www.issr.org.uk/new-atheism.asp
I will be interested to hear if you could clear up any points.
I think that the article on new atheism is unintentionally right. It claims: “The ‘new atheists’ argue that acceptance of science is incompatible with belief in God. I hope I have shown that the case has not been made.”
Well I’d agree to that, except that no coherent definition or description of what g.o.d. even is has been given yet. It’s kind of hard to show incompatibility of an ill-defined entity and science.
Of course the flaw is the mischaracterization. The point is that whenever science and made up stuff come in contact, science trumps. And in areas where science doesn’t have anything to say yet, we all can make up stuff as we want, but it has no actual merit.
Egbert, why do you say Dixon is a theologian? I haven’t seen him described that way anywhere (not that I’ve made an exhaustive search, certainly). He may be a historian with theological interests, but that doesn’t make him a theologian – and since he says he isn’t one, we should probably take his word for it!
I refuse to refer to this controversy as the “science-versus-religion” issue. If anyone brings it up, I’m going to say “Oh, you mean the ‘reality-versus-utter-speculation’ issue?” Saves time.
Ophelia,
That would clear things up if he specifically denied being a theologian. But then, what’s he doing writing about theology?
I can’t work out if this is unfair or overly flattering. Either way, writing about theology doesn’t make him a theologian. I’ve written about ethics, books and pornography but I’m not a philosopher, a critic or Ron Jeremy.
@BenSix
That is very true! But it’s all a bit vague and confusing to me.
Look at these wonderful organizations:
The Center for Theology and the Natural Science: http://www.ctns.org/
European Society for the Study of Science and Theology: http://www.esssat.org/
Is there an agenda here?
#10:
Well, duh. Obviously Ron Jeremy wouldn’t go by the name “BenSix.”
I bet there’s a joke there that I’m not getting, being unfamiliar with porn and with Ron Jeremy. (No, don’t explain!)
Interesting about the theology. A theologically-inclined historian, perhaps. Or do historians routinely write for theology journals? I wouldn’t have thought so. Not so useful for tenure or promotion.
Definitions. It could indeed be argued that you are a theologian if you have a degree in that area, just like you would be a fully qualified florist if you have finished your apprenticeship there but then go on to work as a plumber. What he meant was probably that he is not running a theology department at the moment, though.
The ISSR Statement on the New Atheism by Keith Ward which Egbert linked is very … special. It asserts dualism and the truth of emotional experiences, and dabbles in the sort of woo that demonstrates profound ignorance of quantum physics. “Consciousness may be an ultimate constituent of reality, not just a by-product of matter.” What’s a reasonable response? “Yeah, man, that’s really far out. Could you pass the joint and turn the record over?”
It would appear that they expect this to be taken seriously, though.
I’ve enjoyed reading the latest round of comments on this theme, prompted by my message. Since one or two of these ask me direct questions, let me try to offer a couple of brief answers:
Ophelia asks me what my approach is to the idea that ‘there is no conflict between religion and science’ – whether I am agnostic about that statement. Such a statement is clearly much too bald (as would be the opposite statement that there is such a conflict) without further analysis. Religion and science have sometimes come into conflict, and have sometimes worked harmoniously together. Some scienists are atheists or agnostics, some are religious believers. Historically, religions have sometimes welcomed and encouraged scientific progress, and have sometimes stood in its way. As the historian John Brooke argued in his classic 1991 book, the real lesson is the complexity of the relationship. As I put it in both the BBC Four programme and my article for the BBC website – there have certainly been conflicts between the churches and science – but such conflicts do not make up the whole story. My book offers further reflections on all these issues, which brings me to….
Eric – thank-you very much for buying my book! I fear that the royalties from one copy won’t quite be enough for a beer for me – but I’m still very grateful and hope you find it informative! I enjoyed writing it, and I tried to do some justice, in a ‘Very Short’ book, to the interesting philosophical and historical issues involved.
Egbert – you ask me the fantastic question whether I am an ‘agnostic theist’ or an ‘agnostic atheist’. It strikes me that this is like saying to a vegetarian – ‘yes, but are you a beef-eating vegetarian or a pork-eating vegetarian?’ I am an agnostic agnostic! My favourite writer on science and religion is Thomas Huxley – ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ – who coined the term ‘agnostic’ to signal that he did not know the answer to ultimate questions about the nature of reality. He also wrote very impressively about the importance of doubt more generally – including as part of the scientific attitude. I strongly recommend Huxley’s essays most of which are available online here: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/tindex.html
Now, the question of my professional identity. The term ‘theologian’ is ususally reserved for those who – like Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman or Rowan Williams – have used the tools of academic analysis and debate to develop an intellectual account of their religious faith. In other words, theologians are generally taken to be religious believers. Also, they tend to work in academic institutions or departments devoted to religion and theology. I am a Senior Lecturer in a History department, and I publish books and articles written as a historian. To the extent that I write about theological ideas, it is as a historian, not as a theologian.
Just for bad Jim’s and Egbert’s edification: I have a first degree in English Literature, but I am not a literary critic. I have also taken a degree in theology, and it is quite possible, trust me, to have taken a degree in theology, and take a fairly jaundiced view of theology, and, certainly, not to be a theologian in any relevant sense.
@Thomas Dixon
Thanks for the further comment.
Your analysis emphasises the social, cultural and psychological aspects of the relationship, as might be expected from a historian. This is uncontroversial, in so much as there is much to say on it, and the two processes do intermingle as any two human endeavours are bound to, but what is controversial is religious muddying of scientific methodology, and that is what everyone should be concerned about, and what Templeton *appear* to be encouraging.
The evidence suggest to me that Templeton’s efforts are a danger to the proper conduct of science.
Yes the ISSR statement is rather quaint. To seriously advocate a case for dualism in this day and age is not something generally entertained in polite scientific society – unless you don’t mind everyone turning, pointing and laughing. The statement also seems to purposefully misrepresent the fact that science is based upon the application of methodological naturalism – not philosophical naturalism or materialism as it states here. Naturally we get a nice list of strawmen bringing up the rear that lets everyone know how new atheists are materialistic meanies that don’t try to answer the best cases put forward by the religious, think science can answer everything (including questions of art!) and have a personal antipathy to having meaning in human life!
At least the author helpfully tells us what the Templeton foundation does is “seek to promote better understanding of science and religion issues”. One could say say the same thing about any of the Gnu Atheists.
Perhaps Tom Dixon will stop back to tell us whether he has personally benefited from the Templeton foundation himself?
As for his program, I thought it seemed pretty symptomatic of the arts/science divide in the UK in which science is only important when viewed from a historical, humanities perspective. It was like a greatest hits of Christianity and Science bust-ups, Galileo, Darwin, Scopes, Dover etc. It didn’t really go into the epistemological dispute, more a look at how all the gaps where God was hiding are gradually being filled by science. The fine tuning gap – the current favorite of apologists everywhere – was wheeled out and described in a very Templeton approved manner with some, though not much, argument from the perspective of physicists like Hawking.
So… you’re an agnostic who doesn’t understand what the word “atheist” means. As Egbert made quite clear—and you ignored for reasons that are hard to fathom—there is no conflict between agnosticism and atheism, or indeed agnosticism and theism.
Exactly. Gnosis: “knowledge.” Have you noticed that neither atheism nor theism implies or requires a claim of knowledge regarding any particular “ultimate question[ ] about the nature of reality”? Theism is the belief in god(s). Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Both are compatible with myriad positions concerning one’s knowledge, or capability of knowledge, regarding god(s) and other supernatural notions. As a result, your response to Egbert suffered from simple ignorance of what you were being asked. Could you try again?
It might rather depend on what they write about for a theology journal. If it is about historical aspects of religion then I can see how it would be relevant both historically and theologically.
Thanks very much, Thomas.
(Boy, ain’t it the truth about a single book not paying the author the price of a beer.)
What you say is informative, yet as Mark Jones says, it omits the real issue or question, which is whether religion and science are in epistemic conflict. Maybe you don’t have a view on that, or maybe you just aren’t interested in it, and of course the social and institutional history is interesting and important too. But…I think (and I’m not the only one) that part of Templeton’s project and agenda is to obfuscate the real issue – epistemic conflict – by pouring out a stream of material on other potential sources of conflict and saying they are less conflictual than the conventional wisdom claims. In that sense, what you are saying is “useful” to them. That of course doesn’t prevent it from being terrific scholarship, entirely sound, etc etc, nor does it mean you’re a fan of their agenda (assuming they have such an agenda).
So – do you recognize any of this? Or does it just sound like raving paranoia?
And do you have any opinion on the epistemic conflict, and if so, what is it? Clearly your field is a branch of intellectual history, so epistemology is far from alien to you overall.
Well, and here I was thinking that authors couldn’t find enough pockets to stuff all their royalties in! It’s a bit of a downer finding that I didn’t even buy you a beer!
Anyway, I’ll come back to this — perhaps write a little essay if Ophelia is interested — but it seems to me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the so-called field of “Science and Religion.” First of all, it should be the other way round, because scientists really aren’t very concerned about religion, unless they are (i) people of faith on the side, or (ii) their scientific work is being compromised by the claims of the religious, whether moral or cognitive.
I’ve finished the book (Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction) for the first read over, and I find it hard not to see it as a piece of religious apologetic, to be quite frank, although its author is an agnostic. I didn’t find the kind of detachment from the religious point of view that I would have expected, and I found it almost pervasive. So, when the Galileo issue was being discussed, there is a lot about realism and anti-realism, and about religion, like science, also wanting to provide knowledge about realities that lie behind the appearances of things. Take this quote, for instance:
Now, this is plainly misleading, if it wants to claim the same reliationship for religious “knowledge” that scientists want to claim for scientific inferred entities and language about them. You can’t get from a text, which is, without any question, completely human, and its interpretation, evidence for entities behind the observed things that we see. The word ‘sacred’ and ‘text’ in conjunction is completely unjustified, until it has been shown to be so, not only held to be so, and I warrant this cannot be shown. (See F. Gerald Downing, Has Christianity a Revelation?)
And then, of course, there is the whole business of politics. The conflict between Gallileo and the Church was not a conflict between science and religion, but a political conflict about sources of authority. But the political conflict was a conflict between science and religion, and I don’t see how to escape this conclusion. The fact that the church, in the end, apologised (several centuries too late), indicates that the church recognises this too. And yet the church persists in making claims which are in direct contention with science: the claim for instance that they support evolution, just not the evolution of human beings (at least in their intellectual/spiritual nature). But this is not to accept or support evolution, but to question its very foundations.
And this has been a central feature throughout the whole period of the development of science. No, religious believers have not always opposed science, and most early scientists were believers. Well, of course they were. Practically everyone was. Besides, it was actually dangerous to say that you weren’t. There have been significant concessions you might say to scientific discoveries by religious authorities and other believers. Some were simply too obvious to be denied. Others were accepted reluctantly and partly. But there has been continuing conflict between religion and science from the beginning of the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century until today, and the conflict is ongoing, and it seems pointless to deny it.
Certainly, the conflict was also political. How could it not be, since religion was so embroiled in politics. Churches made, and continue to make, temporal claims. So Tom Paine’s response was a needed one to the completely unacceptable arrogation to itself of continued rights over freedom of belief. So was Bertolt Brecht’s. The Roman Catholic Church tried to limit the effect of the conflict between freethought and science and religion by putting books on an index which people were forbidden to read under pain of excommunication. Clerics were later required to make anti-modernist oaths, or lose their positions and means of living as well as being excommunicated.
Pope’s were even declared infallible! Challenges don’t get to look bigger than that. So when biblical scholars, like George Tyrrell and AF Loisy began losing their positions because of their refusal to deny the things they were discovering as they read their ‘sacred’ scriptures, this was in effect a conflict between religion and science, and it had a dampening effect on catholic biblical study until the Second Vatican Council. Certainly politics was deeply involved in this conflict, but they were effectively conflicts between religion and science, that is, in this case, the critical historical study of ancient texts, and should be seen to be so. It it not possible to sanitise situations which made people like Hume and Kant fear for their lives or freedoms, by suggesting that this was about something other than religion. Voltaire did not live so close to Switzerland because of politics alone, but because of the way that politics and religion were so deeply entangled.
The other thing which strikes me throughout the book is the way in which the idea of the two books, the book of nature and the book of revelation, are being taken so seriously without argument. It is simply unacceptable to take as a revelation something whose status as revelation is challenged by other claims to revelation, and until there is some way of establishing an error theory which allows us to distinguish true from false revelation, the claims themselves must be dismissed. There must be a way of distinguishing true from false contenders, and if there is no such methodology, then the claims themselves are vacuous. I believe they are. It is the status of religious belief as a form of knowing that is in question here, and until this matter is settled, the question of the relation of religion with science cannot really be asked. As a Christian, were I one, I could ask how I could make my beliefs consistent with scientific knowledge, but that would be apologetics, plain and simple, not an academic field with the misleading title of ‘Science and Religion.’
But if religious belief is based (as it seems to be) almost entirely on claims to revelation, then the “field” of science and religion is effectively a religious attempt at apologetics. I can’t see how it can be anything else, for the main task is to show harmony between science and religion. Science is not going to give way in the face of religious claims, because they are unfounded, so harmonising science and religion must effectively consist in finding ways of interpreting religious beliefs so that they are in some kind of harmony or correspondence to scientific findings.
However, that will have to do for now, but I was left, at the end of your book, Dr. Dixon, with the distinct sense that you had not made your case. Perhaps a closer reading will correct this impression, but at the moment, I am not convinced.
Thank you Dr Dixon for taking the trouble in all our questions, it is very sporting of you. I also genuinely think you are sincere. And so I will briefly try and bring some more clarifications and thoughts.
Huxley–As far as I can see it–misunderstood the term ‘atheism’ to mean that it was a positive belief, a belief in no God. This, I’m afraid, is somewhat of a intentional or unintentional blunder by Huxley, because most atheists see themselves as unbelievers, and will rightly define atheism as: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. It is true that atheism can be further defined as also a positive belief in no God. However, such a definition does not include all atheists and is therefore not the defeault definition. If you’re interested, the philosopher Micheal Martin writes an excellent explanation for the definitions of atheism in his book: Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. You can find a more brief explanation about why atheism is compatible with agnosticism here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/martin.htm
But also, as far as I can tell, Huxley did know reality, and therefore knew natural science gives us knowledge, although not absolute. So I see nothing particularly different between Huxley’s agnosticism and contemporary atheism, only that he either misunderstood atheism or that he, very cleverly, did not want to profess himself an atheist and therefore face prosecution and imprisonment (previously a death sentence) for blasphemy.
But clearly, and gratefully, we atheists today live in a liberal state where atheism is not punished. We atheists are also freethinkers and agnostics, because we have no knowledge of an existing God or gods.
Now, I hope you see that there is absolutely no difference between atheism and agnosticism as described above, however, since agnosticism deals with knowledge, it is entirely possible for a theist to also be an agnostic, but clearly not an atheist.
Now of course, rational atheism has moved on recently, to a more outspoken form which views the world as purely naturalistic and using the methodology of science to give us knowledge. It also condemns religion not as a friend to science but as a foe to science, and it also condemns religion as immoral. These things are obviously things you would disagree with, but I hope that you can see that agnosticism has much in common with atheism. If you’re interested in learning more about new atheism, then of course there are works such as God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, or you may find the recent new work, To Set Prometheus Free, by A C Grayling to your taste
Eric: I’m interested!
Ah well, then, I must get to work!
Reason underpins all academia, scholarship, science and all things intellectual–it underpins our entire civilisation. Therefore using terms such as ‘revelation’ and trying to promote it as a valid intellectual subject and debate goes against reason. This is why I find the growing encroachment of theology and religion in other areas of academia to be a grossly corruptive and destructive.
If you are going to be a responsible historian, then when you mix revelation and reason as equally valid, you’re destroying everything about what it is to be an historian, and returning to the days of poetry and prophecy, the rule of authority over the rule of reason.
From Thomas Dixon’s Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction as quoted by Eric:
Eugenie Scott said something very similar at the Secular Humanist conference yesterday, which I made a note of:
I found that quite staggering, from a scientist – an unseen reality? The reality of it is of course precisely what is at issue, so it seems very odd indeed to simply dub it a reality without qualification.
@Ophelia
We’re back to vagueness! Science deals with reality, through observation, experience, measurement (directly or indirectly). Hence, a scientist can use an instrument to discover the microscopic world, the world of the infra-red, the world of cosmic rays, neutrinos, dark matter. All these things are based on discovering knowledge through our senses, confirmed by verification. Science does not deal with what is not known or what is not knowable.
But Religion is most definitely not interested in epistemology nor science, but in power and authority. It will use epistemology for its own aims at influencing people on how to behave, what to think, how to feel. Religion uses every new invention and technology, new ideas and philosophies so as to grab power and authority. It will even use ignorance and irrationality for power and authority. And this is what is meant by unseen reality. Unseen reality means the God of the gaps, Plato’s realm of ideas or forms, everything that falls outside of epistemology and the known. It means vagueness and mystery, poetry, feelings, irrationality. Anything and everything to create vagueness and unreason.
Thomas Dixon, I do hope you will reply again, though I also certainly understand that you have plenty of better things to do! But I am really curious about this, and I think we can probably pin down the place where we part company.
I haven’t read your book yet, but to supplement Eric’s quotations, there is one from your BBC article:
That’s the place – the part-company place. I think that last clause is misleading. I don’t think religion has the same kind of desire to find out what’s behind the world we can see that science has. I don’t think religion has a genuine desire to find out what’s behind the world we can see. Religion doesn’t inquire into what’s behind the world we can see, it simply adheres to and passes on existing doctrine about what’s behind, and the existing doctrine is itself not derived from earlier inquiry, it’s just doctrine.
Do you disagree?
I’d certainly be interested in reading such an essay by Eric. I especially like the point that you can’t get evidence for what’s behind reality from a text and its interpretations, and I thought that sharpening up that sentence a bit, you could get a really memorable quote.
I’m sure you (Eric) know this already, but Tom Paine makes the point that you can’t talk about revelation having taken place unless you witness it yourself: it’s just hearsay otherwise.
Just look at the complexity and the durability of Islam or Christianity, and yet the whole thing is a house of cards, built on hearsay. No wonder they appear to feel threatened by Gnu atheism.
Hitch at #6 has hit the nail on the head.
Theologians have so far failed to come up with an agreed definition of ‘God’ or ‘god’ (Gawd this is tricky) the way say, chemists have arrived at an agreed definition of an element. The god/non-god divide has been more tricky for them than say the plant/animal divide has been for biologists. On top of that there are further disputes as to what constitutes this ill-defined god’s revelation. What is acceptable and what not (eg scripture vs apocrypha) is a can of worms beside the relatively straight-forward debates in the history of science, such as those over geocentrism or phlogiston theory.
Theology is a 44 gallon drum full of an unspecifiable number of separate cansofworms. How it in turn relates to science is therefore matter for endless speculation and controversy amongst those interested in taking part.
Added to this we have the interesting new book (from the publicity surrounding it at least) America’s Four Gods by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader. According to them what God is in the popular mind varies, but can be usefully seen as coming in four main varieties: 1. authoritative, 2. benevolent, 3. critical (judgemental) and 4. distant.
According to the Harris organisation, percentages of the population by country believing in any form of god or any type of supreme being UK 35, France 27, Italy 62, Spain 48, Germany 41, US 73.
God, it appears, exists only to the extent that people believe in him/her/it. I think even Karen Armstrong, author of The History of God would probably believe in that. Other entities, like butterflies and like wheels exist independent of belief. Or so I believe.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/book-religion-examines-ways-americans-perceive-god/story?id=11825319
http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76:belief-in-god-by-country&catid=153:statistics&Itemid=72
Gee, Mark, you should have linked to your latest post.
Lots of good connection-making there!
[…] up to his eyeballs. There seems to be no one in this “field” who is not.Thomas Dixon replied again yesterday, which was generous and helpful of him. I think, though, that his work is more […]
According to Dr. Granville Dharmawardena of Colombo University reincarnation may be defined as the re-embodiment of an immaterial part of a person after a short or a long interval after death, in a new body whence it proceeds to lead a new life in the new body more or less unconscious of its past existences, but containing within itself the “essence” of the results of its past lives, which experience goes to make up its new character or personality.
[edit]
I have also discovered the mathematical expression for emotional quotient (E.Q.) and for spiritual quotient (S.Q.).
Austrian Scientist Rudolf Steiner says,
“Just as an age was once ready to receive the Copernican theory of the universe, so is our age ready for the idea of reincarnation to be brought into the general consciousness of humanity”.
It seems as if one the strategies deployed, in trying to reconcile science and religion, is to conflate two questions which are clearly distinct:
1) Are science and religion compatible?
2) Do people believe that science and religion are compatible?
The first is a conceptual or epistemic question, whereas the second simply concerns facts about people. Since it is possible for people to have false beliefs, the answer to one question does not depend on the answer to the other.
Yes please science and religion are compatible. I am working for the synthesis of science and religion.
Stephen Hawking writes in The Grand Design, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” Hawking said the Big Bang was merely the consequence of the law of gravity. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking had suggested that the idea of God or a divine being was not necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe. Although Hawking is very close to Truth yet he is not perfect in his views while discarding the role of divine being. I consider the role of eternal gravity uppermost but I strongly differ with Hawking on the role of divine being. I consider Divine Ordainment is the cause of Creation of Universe. Now I give Radhasoami Faith view of Creation Theory. In Sar Bachan (Poetry) composed by His Holiness Soamiji Maharaj the August Founder of Radhasoami Faith the details of creation and dissolution has been described very scientifically. It is written in Jeth Mahina (name of Hindi moth) in this Holy Book: Only He Himself (Supreme Father)and none else was there. There issued forth a great current of spirituality, love and grace (In scientific terminology we may call this current as gravitational wave). This is called His Mauj (Divine Ordainment). This was the first manifestation of Supreme Being. This Divine Ordainment brought into being three regions, viz., Agam, Alakh, and Satnam of eternal bliss. Then a current emerged with a powerful sound. It brought forth the creation of seven Surats or currents of various shades and colours (in scientific terminology we may call it electromagnetic waves). Here the true Jaman or coagulant was given (in scientific terminology this coagulant may be called as weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force). Surats, among themselves, brought the creation into being.These currents descended down further and brought the whole universe/multi verse into being i.e. black holes, galaxies etc. were born.I would like to add further that sound energy and gravitational force current are non polar entity and electromagnetic force is bi-polar. Hence spiritual polarization, if occurred, is occurred in the region of Sat Lok and region below to it only.
how do you get up in the morning? Depending on who’s asnkig (& whether they are genuinely interested in the response), I may reply along the lines of well, first I stick my feet out from between the sheets, & then I sit up (& try to avoid stepping in or on any gifts’ left by the cat’