A science-y god
There was, as we all know, a time when religion WAS science…and just now we are coming out on the other side, where science is becoming religion. That is to say, religion is starting to conform (or contort) itself to the scientific understanding of reality. God is harder to find in this model, so we hear science-y theories about God influencing our universe at the quantum level. Or rather than denying evolution outright, many believe that God *guided* evolution to produce us (neverminding that he killed off 99% of all existing species to do it).
Whenever I hear these kinds of theological conjectures, I can’t help but picture God in critical condition and on intellectual life support. I can fully understand the effort, though…there was a time when I eagerly sought out similar theories to explain Tarot divination and magic spells. We have a powerful attachment to our beliefs.
And it isn’t enough to say that religion is necessary to address morals and purpose…after all, upon what authority can religion decide such things? If a religion calls upon God or revealed scripture as the source of purpose and morality, as many do, then it is reasonable to question the reliability of those sources. If religion does not call upon such sources, then we can ask, why look to religion at all? Do we really think that morality requires a belief in a god in order to carry sufficient weight in society?
Or can we have a religion without God? Without magic, angels, and souls? Can we? That’s a serious question. No matter how far science advances our understanding of reality, will humans have an irresistible urge to find God in the gaps of our knowledge? Will we always look for Someone Out There?
I don’t know the answer to those questions. I hope, though, that it is possible to transform religion itself, just as we’ve transformed our understanding of the world. Community, purpose, meaning, and well-being do not require religion, but religion can play a positive role in their advancement, especially if it becomes fully informed by science. As a parallel, the practice of medicine is not, in itself, a science, but it is fully grounded in science. Why cannot religion have a similar relationship? I think it can.
these days, one of the books i am slow-reading, on and off, is stephen prothero’s “god is not one”. one of the points he makes is that there can be a religion without god. buddhism, confucianism and daoism are examples, although it is interesting that many who practice these religions quickly run to invent themselves a god, or an angel or two (or five hundred). the tug to that Someone Out There is almost irresistible. the way i am resolving that for me personally right now is that i give in to that tug, while always reminding myself that it is a human, child-like tug that wants to have a heavenly father, and that this heavenly father is most likely not Out There.
“As a parallel, the practice of medicine is not, in itself, a science, but it is fully grounded in science.”
Care to explain what you mean?
And oh, interesting questions.
Hi, Joakim. What I mean to say is that the practice of medicine is not the practice of science…the first is the art of healing (or making insurance executives rich) while the latter uses the scientific method to construct reliable models of reality. They have two different goals and two different methods. But effective medicine is utterly dependent on science, while medical practice that violates established scientific consensus is rightfully considered malpractice. Of course, there is the intersection between the two in medical science, such as conducting experiments on real patients (one was done on my newborn in the hospital) but these are overlapping practices that serve each other.
I believe religion should establish a similar relationship to science. It would look very different, of course, because the practice of religion is obviously quite unlike medicine in many significant ways. But just as medicine can potentially hinder or forward well-being, so it is with religion, and so I believe religion is ethically bound to employ the best information possible in service to its particular goals, and so far science is the best method we’ve yet devised. I believe that for religion to ignore what science has to say about the cosmos and about human nature is irresponsible while actively working against science is abhorrent.
Thanks for clarifying this.
You write a lot about “meaning” in these pages and that RN has to somehow offer its adherents some kind of meaning. How about viewing religious language as an language of meaning while science (do you mean the natural sciences?) uses a language of objects? From my readings of some theologians and religiously inclined thinkers this way of thinking is not foreign to for example Christianity. Your concept of “Allegoricalism” includes thoughts like this but even then you don´t seem to like to word “God”.
You write a lot about “meaning” in these pages and that RN has to somehow offer its adherents some kind of meaning.
I don’t say that RN provides meaning, but that it might help inspire people to establish their own sense of meaning.
How about viewing religious language as an language of meaning while science (do you mean the natural sciences?) uses a language of objects?
I think that’s too narrow a definition of what science addresses (and by “science”, I mean the general pursuit of knowledge that uses the scientific method). For example, science also looks at processes and tries to understand how things happen. Religion traditionally also addresses objects and processes, often folding in things like moral oughts, so there is a lot of overlap there.
Meaning is, I suspect, mostly grounded in relationships and experiences, especially of the type that have a sense of profundity. Science is obviously unnecessary for this, but can greatly inform the project. For instance, science can help establish a reliable model for our shared cosmological and biological origins, both of which can be a source of great meaning. This is why I say that science can (and should) inform religion. Science can also inform us of the kinds of relationships and experiences that optimize well-being.
Regarding god-language, I’ve already outlined by general objections here: http://www.sacredriver.org/679/god-language-and-religious-naturalism People are, of course, free to use whatever language they want to describe their experiences and beliefs. But the real issue isn’t “God” but all the details behind what a person attaches to that construct. Using “God” as shorthand for meaning is more likely to produce misunderstanding than clarity, since people will interpret that word using their own preconceived ideas. At the same time, there is no reason why “scientific” words couldn’t become imbued with the poetry that characterizes religious language…it’s all about context and intent.
Hm, ok. As I wrote “a language of objects” I was aware of it as a narrow definition. What I meant was that religious language adresses other things and its not necessary throw it all away – water, baby and all… This is the strength of RN and the weakness of theistic religions and non-spiritual atheism (hope you get my sense of “spiritual” here). What religious language offers (among other things) are pictures and words for spiritual/transcendental experiences. But of course you already know this.
“But the real issue isn’t “God” but all the details behind what a person attaches to that construct.”
I don´t understand this comment as it implies there actually is something called “God”.
What I meant was that religious language adresses other things…
Well, I think that religion addresses a lot of the same things as science, but from a different perspective and using a different set of a priori assumptions. For example, both religion and science are concerned with truth, but both can have different criteria for what counts as reliable data. Religion (at its best) can be seen as a conglomeration of goals related to human thriving, and it is perfectly reasonable to look to creative, non-scientific efforts for inspiration in service to it. But science has a great deal to say about human thriving, so an ethical religion will eventually shift the locus of authority towards science and away from scripture and superstition.
I don´t understand this comment as it implies there actually is something called “God”.
I thought it implied the exact opposite.
That there is no consensus on what “God” is can be seen as evidence that one does not exist. If there were indeed a deity that was sensible to the human mind, we would have by now arrived at a clear understanding of what it is. There is only one science but billions of gods.
The former Archbishop of Sweden has written a small treatise on the relation between the word “God” and God. Interestingly (and not very surprising) his conclusion is the exact opposite of yours…
Now. As me and my family will be on vacation for almost a month, I wish you and your family a great summer and lots of good luck in your new place.