More rambling

So now we have a pope.  Well, not "we" as in "me", but you get the idea.

Actually, Christina's comment brings up a few things that I was thinking about, too.  It was a really fast decision for who would be the next pope.  Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger), who has been referred to as the "enforcer of the faith".  Quite a warm, fuzzy title.  Some of the criticism that I've heard is that he's fairly conservative, and that this is supposed to be a bad thing.  Not being Catholic, I don't entirely understand all the implications, but this does raise one issue for me.

Remembering back to the last election, the biggest excuse made for getting Bush elected (at least around here) was all idiot religious nuts went out and voted.  "If only they would think once in a while" was what I'd hear.  Now, I am "religious" (although I hate that word), and I do try to think once in a while.  So why the stereotype?

In a way, I think that I understand.  I know that Religion has gotten in the way of progress from time to time.  The earth was originally seen to be at the center of the universe, and to speak differently was heresy.  Near as I can tell, there's no evidence in the Bible that God made the universe as a bunch of extra "heavens" above a flat earth. To get a little more real, Religion has also promoted the slaughter of millions of people, the oppression of millions of others, and so on and so forth. 

These obstacles to progress really can create an image problem.

I think I understand why people rail against this stuff.  This is why I have a problem with Religion.  Religion and faith are often entirely different concepts.  Faith is remembering Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, where he says that the meek will inherit the earth (not the weak).  It's sometimes hard to see true faith in Religion.  As far as Christianity goes, I think you can sum it up pretty easily..."Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind.  And love your neighbor as yourself".  Another one says that "Religion that God considers pure and faultless is to look after widows and orphans in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world".  Not exactly racist, sexist, or all that close-minded.  So somehow we got lost along the way.

To jump to science, I really don't think that the Bible says anything about Quantum Mechanics.  All we have is that God said "Let there be light".  Does it matter that we now call the light "photons"?  There's a t-shirt that I really like, where on the front God "speaks" Maxwell's equations, and on the back it says "and there was light".  When I was in college, a good friend of mine said he got into physics because he wanted to understand the mechanism of God's creation.  I think this is a noble goal.  Granted, by it's very definition, science refuses to deal with God.  Science is a search for "natural laws".  This means that the universe operates without the need for a chariot to carry the sun across the heavens, etc.  God, being supernatural, can't really be defined by science.  From this, people make the jump and say there is no God.  But I don't think that science, in its purest form, excludes God.  I think that it's very easy for science to become a sort of religion itself, where people take what has been said about our universe, and then conclude that science has defeated, or killed, God.  Only fools still believe.  I don't see the leap.

Anyway, I know this is getting long (and I'm in a meeting, so the longer I write the more likely I am to get totally muddled.  Hope I've done okay).  This is a whole huge can of worms.  This is an intensely long discussion.  I'll have to think about this for a while.  Unorganized thoughts in a blog...ugh.

Comments

[Lucinda]

Don't you have a thesis to write? I thought you told me you wouldn't be getting sleep this week...where did you find time to blog? =^P

[Sharon]

What do you think is the difference between "religious," "spiritual," and "having faith"? Is it just a connotation issue, or is there more? Would "religious" be the best way to describe yourself?

What about literal versus metaphorical? Just as you pointed out with the "let there be light" comment, the Bible doesn't explain mechanisms. In Genesis, the world's made in seven days (ok, I guess technically six). I don't think anyone really believes that these are literal 24-hour days. And if you look at evolution, the progression is certainly analagous -- it just took a whole lot longer. So, I don't know how much of the racism, sexism thing comes from a literal interpretation (and if it did, you mentioned other passages that have been ignored in the process), but it seems if things were interpretted more figuratively, there wouldn't be as much issues to deal with. Maybe?

I'm just rambling as well. :)

[Amanda]

Your mention of the relationship between science and religion made me think of an article I read by Charles Townes. It's found at the proceeding link, and is appropriately titled "The Convergence of Science and Religion". Check it out if you're interested. I mention all this under the assumption you've never read it before. If you have, I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Amanda

The article:
http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2005/03/09/2005030960288.htm

[Mike]

Hi Bryan-

You should check out Sean Carroll's recent discussions of religion and science on preposterous universe if you haven't already done so. He certainly provides an interesting perspective.

http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_preposterousuniverse_archive.html#111387591806156772

[Aaron]

"So now we have a pope. Well, not 'we' as in 'me', but you get the idea."

Hehehe... this reminds me of something I overheard at the Hebrew school where I work.

Kid: "Look! That's our new pope!"
Teacher: "Not OUR pope!!!"

:D

[Amelia]

I think that science and religion are not in direct competition. Well in fact they are in competition, but they shouldn't be. Science's discoveries far from disprove biblical notions. Say the Big Bang theory is correct - Genesis does not state HOW the world came into being (except the whole "and god said" and the seven days thing, which is open to interpretation, i do not think that the world was made in seven (or six) precise slots of 24 hours) so what's to say that science isn't actually proving Religion to be correct? Faith and Religion are two completely different things i agree, and i think the thing to remember is that Religion thus carried out in the world, (in all its bad points, persecution etc) is not the fault of God as so often people assume, but that we as people live in a fallen world, and therefore the ways in which we use our faith might not always do Religion justice.
I think that it is possible for science and religion to work together, not everything in the world will ever be explained by science; spiritual aspects of nature cannot always have solid proof, and therefore surely the two subjects, instead of opposing each other, could be seen to back one another up and further explore the unexplained.

[aalu paneer]

The trouble with Religion is that all said is vague and anything that needs to be, can be retro-fitted.