Creed: the earth is a globe...

Barry asked a good question: “Do you ever get a little threatened by the ideas of science and psychology that threaten to reduce our long-held Christian beliefs into fragments of a quaint historical period?”

I guess that’s where I started. It is the crux of my struggle – to reconcile apparently alienated ways of thinking. But this crux is a creation of a debate between alienated positions, which are neither representative of their respective fields not appropriate for me to inherit in my thinking.

Science has its fundamentalists. Richard Dawkins being one of the more vocal examples from Evolutionary Biology. A debate between fundamentalists in science and fundamentalists in Christianity is never going to be a helpful debate. While I respect Dawkins immensely, I think he is just plain wrong when it comes to his opinions about religion (although not all his opinions…). Similarly, I think most Christian fundamentalists have misrepresented the faith I hold dear. Between these two extremes is a host of view points that actually have a great deal in common, or at least reason to cooperate.

The supposed pitched battle between science and religion is a false idea based on false conceptions about both science and religion. I consider myself religious, but there are many religious people who would call me an atheist. The science most people have in mind is the science of high school, which is all about hard facts and a categorical world-view. Science in fact is quite tentative and every year new revisions are making once accepted world-views relative.

It is worth bearing in mind that science and faith in the western world have grown up together. Seldom have they behaved as separately as they have in the last century and the consequences of that separation are moot: nuclear bombs and Pat Robertson. Prior to this unfortunate separation some of the most important scientific discoveries were made by church people. And still today, some of the most important religious movements have been bolstered and led by scientists.

I no longer fear science. I have found science makes me wonder like nothing else. It was an atheist scientist who introduced me to the idea of wonder (the “numinous” – Carl Sagan) – an idea I think is integral to worship.

I think the idea that religion can be localised in a part of the brain should give us cause to rejoice that we are about to figure out what makes for good religious experience. The church should be supporting studies that are helping scientists understand how religion works – good and bad. These studies do not erode religious claims unless those claims are inappropriate.

When Kopernik (Copernicus) proposed his solar system model of the universe, he did not lose his faith. When Galileo used this idea to challenge the church he did not lose his faith. And many faithful people found these ideas refreshing, even if the hierarchy were threatened. And today we accept this view of the universe without a moments hesitation.

Science may cause us to revise our language, but it can never undermine faith. This conversation was reported by Carl Sagan after he met with the Dalai Lama.

SAGAN: What would you do if we came up with convincing proof that Buddhism was wrong?
DL: If science found a serious error in Tibetan Buddhism, of course we would change Tibetan Buddhism.
SAGAN: Suppose it was something basic? Suppose, for instance, it was reincarnation?
DL: If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation. (with a twinkle in his eye) But it's going to be very hard to disprove reincarnation.