"My scientist friends have come up with things like "principles of uncertainty" and dark holes. They're willing to live inside imagined hypotheses and theories. But many religious folks insist on answers that are always true. We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of "faith"! How strange that the very word "faith" has come to mean its exact opposite.
People who have really met the Holy are always humble. It's the people who don't know who usually pretend that they do. People who've had any genuine spiritual experience always know they don't know. They are utterly humbled before mystery. They are in awe before the abyss of it all, in wonder at eternity and depth, and a Love, which is incomprehensible to the mind. It is a litmus test for authentic God experience, and is -- quite sadly -- absent from much of our religious conversation today. My belief and comfort is in the depths of Mystery, which should be the very task of religion."- Richard Rohr
2007-03-04 08:46:46 · 9 answers · asked by ? 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Aside from the bit about 'imagined hypotheses and theories', that is beautifully written.
The best hypotheses require a bit of creativity, which is usually associated with imagination and the ability to think of something that no one has thought of before, at least in quite that way. But the processes that hypotheses have to go through before they are accepted as theories are well beyond imagination.
I'd like to think that Rohr understands that and is using 'imagined' as a compliment to the creativity which leads to ground-breaking science. I'm afraid though that he isn't, and I know that many others will use that against us.
It is clear from my experience here that, by and large, Christians want everything certain and secure, while atheists are quite comfortable with the fact that we don't know everything.
Yet.
2007-03-04 08:59:16 · answer #1 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Modern science and religion are indeed more similar than their respective supporters would like to think; simple matters of observation are key in both religion and science. Indeed, some people today follow science as an advocated religion; no, I am not referring to Scientology, but rather to the fact that some people see evolution, for instance, as our reason for existance. How is this any different than saying that God is our reason for existance? Science and religion are both constructs of the human mind, based off of observations and ideas formulated by men; in no way is science "more provable" than religion. It is also true that we religious people have come to put emphasis on the things that are certain, but many things that are mysteries are aptly named: humans can never fully understand these matters, and should not seek to waste their efforts in interpreting the very workings of God that have wrought our universe. Love is so lamentably absent from our world today; this is quite sad, but so long as each believer comes to show love to others, it can gradually gain a place in the world again.
2007-03-04 12:50:51 · answer #2 · answered by whatifgecko 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hypotheses and theories do not have any more something to do with faith. they're achieveable causes, hypotheses being a lot less likely to be the right causes than theories. clinical theories are not any more imaginary, they're fantastically reliable. they don't look, although, held out to be "truth" or "truth", they stay categorized what they're. faith substances each little thing, no count number how no longer achieveable, as truth, beginning with the thoroughly unfounded and unsupported fact that deities exist. i do not see how you may communicate about an "authentic God journey", even as God doesn't exist. there is no paradox right here. faith is faith-depending, and technological expertise isn't. Love and humility do not have any more something to do with it, they're human attributes and all of us has them. To insinuate that a religious journey that "humbles" someone is extra authentic than one which does no longer is quite ironic. It underscores a level i have made many cases, that faith dehumanizes people, places itself above them, and isn't any longer healthful.
2016-11-27 21:25:41 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science always goes with the best available evidence. There is plenty that we don't know and that is OK. Science is the first to admit that. But science does not make up answers and insist they are right, even when conflicting evidence comes along, like religion does.
2007-03-04 08:51:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The battle that the fundamentalists are fighting is not about knowledge or enlightenment It is about defending their power and control. It is about defending their money sources. As long as they can sell their act they can collect huge revenues, control enough votes to swing elections and have access to the highest levels of government.
Please do not ever get confused about what the war between religion and science is about.
2007-03-04 08:55:06 · answer #5 · answered by U-98 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Check this site out
2007-03-04 08:49:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not a paradox.
Faith is, by definition, the absence of reason.
2007-03-04 08:50:43 · answer #7 · answered by Morey000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beautifully said. Accept you didn't say it.
Still, wonderful.
2007-03-04 08:50:08 · answer #8 · answered by Oshihana 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope... this pic. explains it all http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png
2007-03-04 08:49:36 · answer #9 · answered by funaholic 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋