A few weeks ago I referenced an article by a scientist discussing his relationship with God and the resolving of the tension between these seemingly contradictory realms of faith & science. Some of you asked me questions that I wasn’t able to respond to because I was out of town. I thought it might be fun . . . or at the very least amusing for me to display my ignorance by trying to articulate some of my thoughts on how science has/is shaping my faith.
Since this is such a sticky subject, I thought I should probably give you at least 14 disclaimers before I begin.
1) I’m not a scientist. Nor am I an expert in theology.
2) It is pointless for me to speculate on things that are over my head.
3) I’m going to do it anyway.
4) If you get mad at me . . . that’s fine. I’ll probably change my mind next week and you can like me again then.
5) I think Atheism takes just as much faith as theism (either in it’s mono, poly, or deistic flavors).
6) In the same way that I’m quite ignorant of things that I have not studied or spent substantial time with . . . it would be wise for Christians to recognize that there are things that wicked-smart people in the scientific community know that you don’t know. And it is utterly ridiculous for you to pick and choose which pieces of science fit into your perspective. Such as believing in the science of weather, chemistry, and medicine to name a few yet refusing to believe in the possibility of the factual science of the universe.
7) In the same way that I’m quite ignorant of things that I have not studied or spent substantial time with . . . it would be wise for the scientific community to recognize that there are things that people in the faith community experience that they are unable to understand. And it is utterly ridiculous for you to pick and choose natural experiences over supernatural experiences just because logic can’t explain it.
8 ) I recognize the limits of rational discourse. And am in now way attempting to fit into the modernistic mold of making faith fit into the box of the scientific through the means of rational discourse. I think a majority of the talk that comes from religious scholars, including groups like the Jesus Seminar, to ignore miracles, dismiss the supernatural, and explain away anything that makes Jesus or the Scriptures seem like more than just an ordinary man who was an enlightened teacher is foolishness and folly (see #7).
9) To understand my posture towards the modernistic rational discourse of scientists and religious scholars please see #2, #3, & #6.
10) I think the authors of Scripture (while “inspired” to tell the story of their relationship to God and God’s relationship to them) only knew what was available to them in their cultural context. They thought the world was flat. The heart was the “brain” of the body. And believed in a huge gap/dichotomy between “heaven” and “earth”, among other things. So when they wrote, they wrote what they knew. And communicated the story of God the only way they knew how . . . through more stories. Some with exact conversations. Some with myths. Some with dream sequences. Some with allegory. Some with black and white teachings.
11) I think Darwin has been used as a tool and made to say things he neither wrote nor believed.
12) I am hugely fascinated my Albert Einstein.
13) I like string theory.
14) I believe what Einstein said . . . “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
14 Comments
Wow, you must really be winding up a helluva line-up of infuriating posts, that’s some serious disclaiming.
i’ll volunteer to be pissed off first
peace
Did Einstein have anything to say about Religion which uses weighted scientific evidence in order to prove the infallibility of their sacred texts?
Whatever you say won’t make me mad. I’m 53 and have been going round and round on these issues for most of my life. I don’t have the energy to blog but I commend those who do; the Internet is a wonderful resource. Peace, mudpuppy
I forgot to add, I’m not the Mudpuppy who commended your blog on his blog. I didn’t know there was another mudpuppy, but at any rate I’m someone else altogether.
i love einstein and think the 2 definitely go hand in hand and can strengthen each other if our minds are open to discussion and possibly admitting where we might be wrong.
James – probably the awesomest thing I have ever heard in my life.
Eric – where are we on the asinine meter here?
ehh, Nicholas, I’ve done some calibrations and sensitivity-to-asininity analysis… alright, let me check…
looks like we’re coming in at about a 3.4 on the asinine meter. not bad, not bad at all.
the thing is when einstein talked about god he wasn’t talking about a deity. he was refering to the god like wonder he felt when observing the universe.
so it was the god like wonder he felt when observing the universe that didn’t play dice with it?
well, yeah.
i think it is funny that christians are so insicure about what we believe that we have to point to others like einstein and go “hey look he is smart and he believes in god.”
before everyone hops on here and gives there favorite einstein quote let me give you my favorite einstein quote…
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. “
Mike – Yeah I have always seen Einstein’s view of God to be close to what you’ve expressed. I think it’s a pretty cool view of God to have for someone who doesn’t believe in a personal God or considers themselves to be religious.
“You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”
That’s one of my favorites. . .
Nicholas,
there are tons of cool quotes from einstein out there. i didn’t know the one you shared came from him. i like that one.
One Trackback
[...] Part One [...]