While in Madison, WI a few weeks ago, I heard part of a rebroadcast of Electrons to Enlightenment, a 5-part series on science & religion from Wisconsin Public Radio’s To The Best of Our Knowledge program, prompting me to download the MP3s & listen to the entire 5 hours on my commute to work. While I was somewhat disappointed that the interviews did not go deeper into the topics surrounding the intersection of science & religion, I nonetheless found the program fascinating & was pleased with the broad range of ideas discussed and the thinkers interviewed, which included some of my favorites: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Ken Wilber, & E. O. Wilson, plus a number that were new to me but whose books have dutifully been added to my Amazon WishList for future reading.
From the range of thinkers listed, one may easily guess that I come down on the side of reason rather than faith. However, while I’m not religious, I do value spirituality. While I don’t hold out much hope for the peaceful coexistence of science & traditional mythic/dogmatic religions, whose approaches & belief structures fundamentally clash, I see science & spirituality as clearly compatible &, in my view, unified complements.
My niece is doing DNA research with fruit flies at the University of Michigan. She has found that her work strengthens her faith and that science is perfectly compatible with her faith. One must have faith to even consider science. To develop a hypothesis is to put faith in an idea. It really is much more than interesting to me that a person can claim “spirituality” which, in a sense is claiming nothing claimable, and reject faith and moreover, reject religion which is just the striving of humanity to explain itself and why we even can go through such a process. You are a very thoughtful person. In all practicality, scientifically, might I suggest also reading books by people with conflicting viewpoints. I wish you a most beautiful day. You know what that means because you are human and not merely the sum of your parts.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Sam.
I agree that one must have some form of “faith” to consider a scientific hypothesis. However, unlike dogmatic religious faith, scientific “faith” (I prefer “belief” in this context) is mutable based on evidence. I find religious beliefs much less responsive to reality.
I also agree that spirituality amounts to little that is “claimable”. Accepting spirituality amounts neither to accepting specific dogmatic assertions on faith (religion) nor accepting specific testable assertions provisionally based on evidence (science).
Instead, I see spirituality as recognition, connection with, & deep appreciation for the ineffable mystery of existence which surpasses our current understanding. A mystic spirituality recognizes that both religious faith & scientific belief are “fingers pointing at the moon”, to use the Zen metaphor. Neither explanation of our existence captures the reality of existence. There is always more. There is always a better understanding.
In my view, however, science & reason do a much better job of explaining this mystery & of guiding our lives than does mythic religion. In the “striving of humanity to explain itself”, it invented myth & religion, then it invented reason & science. I believe these latter tools give us more sophisticated, accurate, flexible, adaptable, & useful means by which to understand our world.
Your invitation to consider conflicting viewpoints is an apt one, one integral to the scientific endeavor, & I reciprocate it. The entire radio series of “Electrons to Enlightenment” was an exercise in contrasting & comparing conflicting viewpoints on the question of the relationship between science & religion and I listened with great interest to the presentations on all sides. Given my habit of mind, I shall no doubt continue to do so in the future on this topic & others.
From one miracle of emergence to another, I wish you a life of beauty and truth.