If religion is fully humanized and open to the critical methods and established truths of the sciences, and if science is used in the service of human welfare and the flourishing of all sentient beings, there can be a long and positive future for human life and whatever forms of life may develop from it. That is only likely if scientists and religious believers engage in a serious, sensitive and inquiring conversation. For that to happen, both fundamentalist religion and fundamentalist atheism will have to be set aside, in favor of something more self-critical and humane. If that does happen, religion will not disappear, but it may, and it should, change. (243)
This is coming from Keith Ward, an ordained priest of the Church of England and a comparative theologist. I read over this many times because I was very confused. Religion should change? Is that what he meant to say? Yes, the only way practical science will be able to continue side-by-side with religion is if religion makes way for it.
The chapter beings by Ward describing the three ages of the world as we know it: the age of religion, followed by the age of metaphysics, and ending with the age of science. He talks about how in the age of science it is very difficult to "see" the transcendence of religious experience and of God as the Ultimate Power. He says that scientists tend to lack the imagination or sense of metaphor that help others to see signs of divinity, and without this, Biblical faith is very difficult to find. He goes on to say that faith is not based on inferential reason, but rather, personal experience. That is why there is no proof of God's existence and there never will be. How do we find faith, then, in something that can never be proven?
Can the beginning of the universe ever be proven? As I said in my first blog post, the answer is pretty much no. Ward admits that it simply makes sense to believe in God as the ultimate creator. If we are able to see Him as a rational mind with a plan for the universe then our faith will follow. Ward writes that using reason to interpret scripture is very important. We must read and understand the teachings of the Bible. Reason, however, does not equal faith. Our faith is the application of what we gain from scripture in our everyday life. It is believing in God and his plans for us and relying on Him to get us from one day to the next. There is no way science can help us in this way.
In the past few years, I have come a long way in establishing my religious beliefs. I was raised Catholic but stopped going to church when I was around seven. I started going back to church on my own my senior year of high school and taught a faith formation class to kindergarteners during which I read common Bible stories, played games, and sung songs about Jesus. Since I have been at Baylor I haven't gone to mass much, usually only when I go home once a month. Obviously, I am interested in the sciences. I study biology and chemistry. I never realized how much the Biblical story and science conflict, I guess because I hadn't thought about it much before I took Biblical Heritage and Contemporary Ethics. It is difficult to answer the questions discussed in this book because you basically have to choose a side, there is really no feasible combination of theories. As far as creation and evolution go, I have pretty much stated my answers already. God created the universe, and evolution followed and continues due to natural selection. God does, indeed, exist and we can say so by using personal experience and scripture as the basis of our faith.
Because I am still working on shaping my faith, the integration of science and religion is very easy. For those that are solid in their "sides" that they choose (either religious or scientific), Ward is right, a conversation between the two does need to occur. Interpretation of the scripture should allow for science to interweave and play a role in one's understanding of the universe. And if it does, the world will be in perfect harmony. In addition to being a Christian and a scientist, I am also an optimist. We will leave it at that.
No comments:
Post a Comment