Over the years, we've talked about science and faith, and whether there's a conflict (my answer is "no". I commend to you some of my previous essays on this topic: Science, Faith, Mythos, Logos and also, Scientists in the Pews. More are linked here.)
Along those lines, here is a great article in the HuffPo, that derives from the Templeton Foundation's Scientists in Congregations grant project.
The author writes of a dialogue with the scientists in his congregation, and what he has learned.
A strong humility governs the professional lives of scientists. They have the academic degrees, the university positions, the experimental successes, the professional accolades, and the grants that are reasons for pride, but they also have a deep and abiding sense of how little they know, of how much remains to be discovered, and of the mystery that surrounds us and in which we live. They have a sense of wonder that is basic to both science and faith. They look at this world that they investigate with amazement and awe.
Because of this, they are able embrace both a scientific outlook and a faith perspective in their lives....
And yet they readily admit that doubt and skepticism are important to their work....
Scientists doubt. They are uncertain about what the results of their work might be. And this uncertainty leads to the unexpected as often as it leads to the expected....
The opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty. Scientists do their work with a kind of faith as well: faith in the scientific method, faith in the orderliness of the universe, faith even in their colleagues. Science, as every enterprise, requires a measure of trust, a "conviction of things not seen," as the author of the Letter to the Hebrews described faith. Faith in the scientific enterprise is different from religious belief, but for many it is also a practice that does not exclude participation in a religious tradition. ...
... I have been in conversations in which scientists in my congregation have shown as much skepticism about Christian doctrine and "proofs" of God as any of the new atheists. But -- and here is the other surprise -- they keep their faith.Once again, evidence that the so-called "war" between science and faith isn't being waged by scientists as such....
3 comments:
IT, I'd love your take on this article: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-24/local/40163710_1_atheists-supernatural-god-prayer
[I take exception, however, to the writer's statement that 12 Steps require a belief in God. Use of the "G word" in 12 Steps is a linguistic convention only. It's specifically stated that one's personally chosen Higher Power can be anything one chooses, and absolutely need NOT be considered "God". But otherwise, I think it's a very good article.]
I think this:
"He thinks more atheists pray than the Pew statistics reveal, though he defines the word as encompassing the deep contemplation of ideas and philosophy — and, most of all, living."
I think there is a place for thoughtful stillness in all our lives. Or call it prayer, or meditation, or contemplation. Does it have to be "to" someone? not at all, but if that's what works for you, go for it.
One of the things I like about going to church with my wife is that the familiar ritual gives me a place for that stillness, hopefully with good music and thoughtful scholarship in the sermon. OTOH, sometimes the ritual gets in the way and I find it tiresome.
I do not "pray" and i do not address my thoughts to anyone but me. But I do think.
Personally, I've never really considered "to" or "addressing thoughts to". Not that I reject it---I've just never considered it. Which gives me the hunch that a "thinking"/"addressing thoughts to" distinction may be illusory and/or irrelevant. Or that sending thoughts OUT or thought dwelling WITHIN is a paradox.
Post a Comment