Sunday, November 05, 2006

God vs Science?

I read this on tonight

"It's a debate that long predates Darwin, but the anti-religion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience.

Brain imaging illustrates -- in color -- the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus.

Catholicism's Christoph Cardinal Schönborn has dubbed the most fervent of faith-challenging scientists followers of "scientism" or "evolutionism," since they hope science, beyond being a measure, can replace religion as a worldview and a touchstone.

It is not an epithet that fits everyone wielding a test tube. But a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls "unprecedented outrage" at perceived insults to research and rationality, ranging from the alleged influence of the Christian right on Bush administration science policy, to the fanatic faith of the 9/11 terrorists, to intelligent design's ongoing claims. Some are radicalized enough to publicly pick an ancient scab -- the idea that science and religion, far from being complementary responses to the unknown, are at utter odds.

Finding a spokesman for this side of the question was not hard, since Richard Dawkins, perhaps its foremost polemicist, has just come out with "The God Delusion" (Houghton Mifflin), the rare volume whose position is so clear it forgoes a subtitle.

The five-week New York Times best seller (now at No. 8) attacks faith philosophically and historically as well as scientifically, but leans heavily on Darwinian theory, which was Dawkins' expertise as a young scientist and more recently as an explicator of evolutionary psychology.

Dawkins and his peers have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science, and an argument in which one party stands immovable on Scripture and the other immobile on the periodic table doesn't get anyone very far.

Most Americans occupy the middle ground: We want it all. We want to cheer on science's strides and still humble ourselves on the Sabbath. We want access to both MRIs and miracles. We want debates about issues like stem cells without conceding that the positions are so intrinsically inimical as to make discussion fruitless.

Informed conciliators have recently become more vocal, and foremost among them is Francis Collins. Collins' devotion to genetics is, if possible, greater than Dawkins'.

Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, he headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint, a milestone that then-President Bill Clinton honored in a 2000 White House ceremony, comparing the genome chart to Meriwether Lewis' map of his fateful continental exploration. Collins continues to lead his institute in studying the genome and mining it for medical breakthroughs.

He is also a forthright Christian who converted from atheism at age 27 and now finds time to advise young evangelical scientists on how to declare their faith in science's largely agnostic upper reaches.

His summer best seller, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" (Free Press), laid out some of the arguments he brought to bear in the 90-minute debate Time arranged between Dawkins and Collins in our offices at the Time & Life Building on September 30. Some excerpts from their spirited exchange are featured in this week's Time cover story."

The "battle" of God vs. Science is ridiculous. Why is there some idea that the two need to exists in some exclusive manner, one excluding the other.


Anonymous Lorenzo said...

"The 'battle' of God vs. Science is ridiculous. Why is there some idea that the two need to exists in some exclusive manner, one excluding the other."

-- I agree.

11:27 PM

Blogger help liberate rhode island they need our help! said...

christians are just as at fault as scientists.or at least in oklahoma.

7:44 AM

Blogger Zach said...

i agree with you sir.

3:02 PM

Anonymous katie said...

this was the official seal of my old school, which was founded in 1866 by scottish presbyterians. (i tried to post the picture, but i guess the html for images isn't allowed.) the latin means "from one fount", and the whole premise of education at the College was that faith and science were not mutually exclusive. the early graduates were, most often either doctors or missionaries.

i think it's kind of cool. i'm tired of the idea that students/thinkers/people of any variety should have to "check their brain at the door" to have faith, or "check their faith at their door" to have a brain. i know some intelligent people who are Christians and scholars.

of course, i also know a lot of "Christians" who are willfully ignorant of any science and philosophy that conflicts with their beliefs. and who are incapable of meaningful conversations where their beliefs are challenged. which is a big part of the reason, i think, why so many educated people lump all Christians into the brainwashed-or-stupid category. sigh.

5:04 PM

Blogger Jacob said...

Katie, you rule. I think you said it perfectly.

8:00 PM


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home