Rosh Ha'Shana began at sundown today, so to any and all the Jews in the audience a big hagg sa'meach and best wishes for the year 5766. Now go be reflective or something.
A discussion has broken out hereabouts, centering on the questions of living spiritually as a scientist. Below, I take my opening shot.
A discussion has broken out hereabouts, centering on the questions of living spiritually as a scientist. Some of my colleagues have been prefacing their ruminations with admissions: "I used to believe in so-called "Creationism." This was before I was exposed to critical thinking as a way of life. I followed the line of religious conservatives, who say that "scientific materialism" is eroding our
relationship with God. I didn't think evolution had any legs..." No links; the action's all in locked LiveJournal posts, so I'll only name names by permission.
I'm fortunate enough to say that my parents set me early to threading this particular needle. I was never encouraged to insist on a literal 168-hour creation, but before middle school had debated with my father whether Elija's soaking pyre could have made a effective lightning rod, and which bodies of water might have flooded so impressively as to yield the stories of Noah (and Gilgamesh). We also speculated on the origins of dragon mythology and tried to get our heads around wave-particle duality, so most everything was fair game as long as no swearing was involved.
Yet my earliest memories of church are of a Catholic parish so traditional, the Mass was still said in Latin. I attended a Catholic school for many of my K-12 years (the science education was quite good overall). The pets got blessed on St. Francis' Day; we set offrendas for El Dia de los Muertos; we bore ashes on Ash Wednesday. I've walked in dozens of Las Posadas processions and still sing in the choir when I visit home. My Catholicism is one of, let's say, three
things that enabled me to survive college.
Surveys generally indicate that of working scientists, roughly half consider themselves actively spiritual. There is a certain reluctance to discuss this, and I know why. To admit to religion risks being seen as lacking rigour or serious-mindedness. Faith is, by definition, belief without empirical evidence, and it has often lapsed into belief in spite of evidence. It invites scrutiny and
discrimination -- which, it should be emphasized, exist more in the trepidation than in practice. But any grad student will tell you, every career scientist has put her or himself through seven kinds of hell just to gain entry to the profession. It's scary to contemplate doing anything that might conceivably jeopardize that. Thus: reticence.
All of which is not to deny that it's trickier for a scientist to be religious. Living the rational life forces us to concede that antibiotics cure the body more effectively than blessings, and that prayer has no discernable ability to bring rain. Where measurement is possible, it must take precedence over dogma, and that empiricism has shown that creation could with perfect consistency have gotten here all on its own, and that the world would get along just fine without us. We humans are at the center of little but our own worldview.
So I believe in God and salvation and the like because I choose to believe. Not because the beauty of the universe or the complexity of life demands it, for they don't. But, you see, I'm Catholic, so mere belief won't save me anyway.
Papa approves. Had to laugh about prayer's lack of efficacy in bringing rain. I'd almost forgotten that discussion about Elijah's wet pile as a possible lighting rod.
Of course, faith is just faith -- Choosing to believe in something simply because you choose to believe in it.
Now, where's my CD with the vacation pics?
When I get around to a real post on the issue, I will point people to you, since you've hit something on the nose.
it surprises me that you are religious.
didn't expect that.
;-)
crystal
Papa: The envelope is sitting on my desk. I'll try to remember to drop it in the mail tomorrow.
Crystal: Hey, I'm full of surprises.
beautifully written.
"Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." - Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics"
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."(The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [AD 408])
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)