There is a kernal of truth in this, and it makes at least one point I tried to make recently in a debate with a reader in my comments section:
(via)
I would suggest that it is not the philosophy of Christ's teachings that is the source of the friction, it is the institutional practices of the religion He never wished to found. One can indeed be a Christian and at the same time not be a Christian in the formal, institutionalized sense (and certainly not a "Christianist", a term I have great fondness for). One can follow the teachings of Christ in the everyday routine and still believe that there was no Resurrection. His teachings are universal. It is far more important to me that I attempt in my own fallible way to follow His (and I capitalize out of respect for others, a most Christian attitude) teachings than it is to believe in His divinity.
I truly believe, and of course I may be completely wrong, wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last, that daily interaction with others, whether they be individuals or nations, in accordance with Christ's teachings, has a more positive and reaching effect. The debate should not be science vs. religion; it should be science vs. philosophy, and in that there should be no discord. Religion as philosophy, science and rational thought can always live comfortably together. One must simply decide whether the teachings or the institutions are more important.
I agree with parts of this, i.e. while I don't believe in god or in the divinity of christ, I do think the philosophical message underpinning the stories about Jesus are generally worthwhile and quite revolutionary. It has always surprised me that his followers are quick to "yeah, yeah" the message and then tear right into rational thought.
Surprise is the wrong word. Disappoint is closer to the mark.
All that said, there was one comment in the Harris/Sullivan debate that rang true and I keep rethinking it. One of them (SH I think) said that the difference between believers and non-believers was that non-believers were more comfortable with uncertainty. This is I think mostly true, or at least embeds a true concept. I'm trying to decide if it's completely true, or if non-believers simply couch their uncertainties in the process of science while believers hedge theirs with the authority of their clerics and holy books. It would explain, for example, while religionists constantly attack folks like Darwin, Copernicus etc. without really coping to the fact that science admits its knowledge is incomplete. Religious knowledge, in this model is complete and handed down through authority or revealed by the gods. it does explain why the extremists get so worried and why their attacks are seemingly so off target (at least to non-believers). I'm comfortable not knowing how the universe and reality got started in part because I know that eventually, if the process of science goes on long enough, the answer will pop out. I may be unfortunate in that I live in a time when the answer is not known, but that's just my bad luck. I throw my little portion of science on the pile and hope it helps.
I need to think about this more, but I think it's essentially correct for a large segment of the religious population. I have to think of a way to test this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I must dispute your claim about uncertainty. I am very comfortable with uncertainty. As a matter of fact, both the Bible & the Church teach that the most certain aspects of life are uncertainty & change. I believe that the ONLY certain and immutable thing in the entire universe is God. Uncertainty is an old friend of mine with whom I am quite comfortable. But maybe that is just how this "primative" believer sees it. One final thought. I tend to think that unbelievers have done nothing more than substitute science for God and that they worship it as such. I am most certainly not anti-science. I have loved science all my life. Still do. I even at times fancy myself an amateur scientist...LOL
Fair enough.
I think though the difference is in how each group comes to comfort on uncertainy, hence the use of bolds. Part of what drives a lot of scientists I know is exactly their discomfort around uncertainty and the idea that the answers are just out of reach.
I have not called believers "primitive" nor would I.
I would disagree about "worshiping" science, although I would certainly invite you to define how you're using that term. No doubt there are folks who do, but at least in my training, what I saw most commonly was resepct for how far the process had come in a few hundred years and excitement about contributing to it. Veneration might also apply, although more rarely. Worship, at last as I use it, involves subordinating freewill, which I dont think I have explicitly seen, nor as far as I know, is taught as part of science education.
Perhaps you are correct about using the word worship. Venerate is closer to what I meant. Of course I am not saying that this is your posistion. However, in my experience, I have come across some folks both scientists & those who think they are, that the term "worship" most certainly applies to. And, I do mean in the sense of subordinating their free will. Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you call believers primative. {But there a very many from the science community that do or hold them in that light}. Actually, I have always found you to be rather polite & somewhat respectful. Even though we each hold such diametrically different beliefs, I can converse with you on the subject in a civil manner.
Post a Comment