Human Genome Scientist Finds God in the Details (RELIGION AND SCIENCE)

[wombat]

"Well, I tell you, if I have been wrong in my agnosticism, when I die I'll walk up to God in a manly way and say, Sir, I made an honest mistake."
(Henry Louis Mencken / 1880-1956)

[Choop]

Hey, I don't mean to press buttons, especially yours. Sorry to rankle.

My statement above is a curt distillation of the whole conflict between science and religion/theology/faith, and a representation of my own struggle to reconcile the two. Frankly, I don't want it to be midi-chlorians, whatever 'it' is in the first place. I'm an atheist, but I'm no fool: I can see that there's something more than just conciousness, that we're more than just awake. I just don't believe in a singular higher power, nor in multiple higher powers.

I just don't want to find out it's something measurable by any corporeal means. Should that happen, spirituality as we know it will be wiped away and a new and terrible -ism will darken the sky.

[AlohaDawg]

The 'he' was Carlos, an expert button-pusher.

I still believe our ability to reason and investigate is a gift meant to eventually lead us to God. Also, I don't think we'll find God to be corporeal - and -isms are purely human inventions as you know, and you are right to fear their power because they come from the minds of men and not God.

Pure, honest Faith will never be replaced by an -ism of any kind. Let me get this right. You are an atheist who believes that there is a 'meta-consciousness' beyond the state of being awake but that that consciousness (or the source of it) is not a higher power or group of higher powers. Is it biological or perhaps an unexplored dimension of reality. the innerspace of the mind kind of thing? Or maybe a Castaneda kind of shamanistic thing? Your statement is intriguing but I'm having trouble visualizing what you're describing.

[Choop]

Sadly, meta-conciousness is probably the best word for it. I'd explain it better, but I honestly have no idea how. It won't fit into any metaphor I can invent.

[Ben-San]

I am a Jew and a man of faith and I put more trust in the findings of science than the writings of any holy book.

This is because I have more faith in God having created the observable universe and man's ability to observe it than I have in man not having fucked up their holy books over hundreds and thousands of years.

No scientific study has ever told me that following the commandments is a bad idea, and I have trouble conceiving of one that would, so there's really only conflict if you have a bug up your behind about taking your manmade books literally.

[AlohaDawg]

I am a Jew and a man of faith and I put more trust in the findings of science than the writings of any holy book.

This is because I have more faith in God having created the observable universe and man's ability to observe it than I have in man not having fucked up their holy books over hundreds and thousands of years.

No scientific study has ever told me that following the commandments is a bad idea, and I have trouble conceiving of one that would, so there's really only conflict if you have a bug up your behind about taking your manmade books literally.

I can't add to or argue with that.

[wombat]

I agree with AlohaDawg there in that last post.  But what I most love about that last post is the 'last edited' note, which makes me imagine him sitting there writing and rewriting a response until he realized that there was nothing to add.  (Please, don't tell me you just fixed a typo, I like my story better.)

[AlohaDawg]

Nope, you're right, I wrote a few minutes, posted it, re-read Ben's post, realized I had added nothing and nuked it.

[V-Adore]

Interesting.

To jump in late, I'm a big believer in the idea of "separate worlds" -- that is, that science and religion are basically separate, provide humans with different kinds of insight, and don't need to be in conflict. The purpose of science is to observe the empirical nature of the world, use those observations to create generalized theories, and then apply those observations and theories into improvements to human life (technology). The purpose of religion is to suggest answers to those questions which cannot be answered via observation of the empirical and to provide guidance and support to those in search of meaning, comfort, and community. (In doing so, religion heavily overlaps with philosophy and ethics, but conflating them is a fallacy, for reasons I've discussed at great length before.) The overlap comes in the mind of individuals and the idea that, for better or worse, our sense of meaning will be informed by our empirical observations of the world, and our use and development of technology will be informed by our beliefs and moral codes.

I've always been a little confused by the need to single out cases where scientists were also people of faith -- because, honestly, what difference should it make? The biggest fallacy that seems to be in place with our thinking about this issue is the idea that our spiritual and philosophical beliefs somehow influence the evidence that can be empirically observed -- as if, say, someone who believes in a supreme Creator has to dismiss the vast array of evidence for evolution out of hand, instead of considering the possibility of evolution as a mechanism of the Creator's work. As a scientist, your job is to observe and use empirical evidence to suggest conclusions, no matter what non-empirically-established opinions you may hold. There isn't even any dichotomy there.