Reader Question- Science vs. Religion

I still have a hard time aligning my belief in God and my belief in science. How do you manage this? What are your thoughts on our origin? What do you tell to Christians who take the 7 day creation literally?          -Shannon

GREAT question, Shannon. Or, er, series of questions. (Cracks knuckles.) Here we go.

I actually see Religion vs Science as a false dichotomy, created by adherents of one or the other who have no interest in their opposite number. In reality, the two have little to do with each other. For starters, you don't believe in Science. That is precisely the opposite of what science is for. If you take "science" on faith (as more than a few people I have met do, mind) then you're not really doing science. Science is all about tested, controlled observation. Sure, you might choose to respect greater minds than your own in issues that quickly go over your head, but in general the entire idea is to be able to look at published findings and replicate them.

Basically, if you are "believing" in Science, then you're doing it wrong. You KNOW science. You codify it. You present it. And you tweak it as you add observations.

Then we have faith, which deals in the UNobserved. I often refer to it as a sixth sense, not in the "I see dead people" vein but a form of inherently unquantifiable awareness. And that's about as far as you can go in describing it, because it resists definition. It's not only a matter of religion, either. Concepts of morality and justice have no place in hard, observable fact. Scientific history tells us that men have more power than women, for instance. The idea that such a state of affairs is somehow wrong exists entirely outside of the scientific realm. Science isn't interested in how things should be, it's got its hands full dealing with how things Are.

And yet, people do faith wrong all the time, too. People get so obsessed with their understanding of the way the world should work that it leaves the realm of belief and becomes knowledge. A person who, for example, KNOWS that homosexuality is a sin and should be blotted out, the person who KNOWS that the world will end on such and such date, the person who KNOWS that they are God's Chosen and so their war is just...

That's not belief. That's knowledge. 

Interestingly enough, in order to do either right, you need to deal with doubt. Proper Science requires a certain cynicism, an unwillingness to accept a set of precepts just on their own merits and rather insist on doing the work to establish them. Likewise, Proper Faith demands a certain level of humility, the constant awareness that you, in your faith, may be wrong.

Both also require a certain level of openness and innocence.  The true Scientist is eager to be surprised, to find the results they never saw coming, the data that leads them far afield. Likewise, a true believer embraces with a wonder a world far beyond what they could ever comprehend, and holds a willingness to experience the world beyond quantifying it.

As to my thoughts on our origin,I'll be the first to point how how limited by scientific training is, but given the data I've had available to me, Evolution makes the most sense. I also believe, from my faith and religion, that the world was created by God. Despite what so many people will tell you, these are not mutually exclusive options. I suppose this technically makes me an "Intelligent Design" person, though you won't see me trying to get ID into schools. I'm not going to be asking politicians do design and approve any sort of religious education anytime soon.

Your last question, concerning 7 Day Creation, has given me an idea for a video that I may try to get recorded this week, so I'll sit on that for now, except to say that, as always, people who claim to take the Bible Literally actually don't. No one does. Everyone interprets. More on that later, I promise.

DFTBA!

Apparently necessary addendum: I didn't mean to imply that scientists are constantly reinventing the wheel re: already established knowledge, OR that those who don't are in some way applying faith rather than knowledge in the system I discussed above. Obviously, if Scientists had to do that, nothing new would ever get done. 

Part of the scientific process involves accepting the (properly) reported observations of peers, so that one person doesn't have to recreate the entire whole of scientific knowledge in order to get to the point where they can finally do a new thing. This still isn't belief... if they needed to, if something seemed, off, they could track the whole thing back through various published results and put them to the test. The results are there... even if each individual doesn't personally vet all of them.