While watching the Symphony of Science video series, I feel the same inner physical thrill I used to experience when attending prayer meetings and discussing spiritual and theological topics with friends. What these scientists say is true: What is real and knowable is fascinating, arresting, and remarkable. We need not dream up anything else.
To devote our lives to understand this universe using science and reason is a profoundly high calling.
Make sure to view the rest of these wonderful videos here.
Bonus Quote:
”Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” – Carl Sagan
Do you agree?
During a recent discussions with my (devoutly Catholic and highly intelligent) mother, we touched on the question of proving the existence of things that cannot be observed scientifically. I wish I could recall the entire conversation for you here, but one of her questions was, “If you were asked for proof that I love you, could you give it?” Meaning that love–which she sees as a very real thing and more than just synapses and chemicals reacting in the brain–cannot be proven, but it still exists. You can guess that she wished to illustrate that God can exist while we cannot scientifically observe or test it.
All that to say … I just read a highly fascinating article called “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe in Science” on why scientific findings can be so thorough and so solid, yet there are still those who will argue against overwhelming evidence and hold tightly to anti-scientific beliefs. You may find it as enlightening as I did. I even see this behavior in myself, so don’t go thinking all atheists claim to be rational and without bias, now.
… [A]n array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called “motivated reasoning” helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, “death panels,” the birthplace and religion of the president (PDF), and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.
We’re not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn’t take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about.
That’s not to suggest that we aren’t also motivated to perceive the world accurately—we are. Or that we never change our minds—we do. It’s just that we have other important goals besides accuracy—including identity affirmation and protecting one’s sense of self—and often those make us highly resistant to changing our beliefs when the facts say we should.
Modern science originated from an attempt to weed out such subjective lapses—what that great 17th century theorist of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, dubbed the “idols of the mind.” Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader processes of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail.
Read more on MotherJones.
Bonus: Creationist cartoons!
Read the Rest! Post a comment (4)
photo by Craig Grocott
A little while ago I stumbled on a blog post about how some Christians tend respond to the doubts of their fellow believers and how that may actually be pushing doubters away.
My [the author's] students say they encounter both reactions. One teen who is struggling to decide what she believes is discouraged because her parents’ primary response is, “Why can’t you just have faith, like we do?”
Another teen who is exploring alternative worldviews says his parents’ response is to denounce them: “You can’t prove that! You have no evidence.” As he tells me, “I need my parents to think ideas through with me, not just judge them.”
When parents and leaders react to questions by shaming or blaming, they may well drive their teens away. Both of my students have recently announced that they no longer consider themselves Christians.
…
Fuller Theological Seminary recently conducted a study on teenagers who become leavers in college. The researchers uncovered the single most significant factor in whether young people stand firm in their Christian convictions or leave them behind. And it’s not what most of us might expect.
Join a campus ministry group? A Bible study? Important though those things are, the most decisive factor is whether students had a safe place to work through their doubts and questions before leaving home.
The researchers concluded, “The more college students felt that they had the opportunity to express their doubt while they were in high school, the higher [their] levels of faith maturity and spiritual maturity.”
…
A 2009 study in Britain found that non-religious parents have a near 100 percent chance of passing on their views to their children, whereas religious parents have only about a 50 / 50 chance of passing on their views.
Clearly, teaching young people to engage critically with secular worldviews is no longer an option. It is a necessary survival skill.
Even though it sounded encouraging and pro-critical thinking, I felt it necessary to respond with a former Christian’s point of view:
The expectation that seems to have been left out of this post is that while believers should encourage honesty and critical examination, the only acceptable and “right” conclusion must be to re-affirm one’s faith and choose Christianity.
But what if the doubter has the courage to say “I’ve examined the evidence, prayed, searched, and discussed my doubts. The only reasonable conclusion I have come to is that Christianity is false.”
Will these parents, teachers, and pastors still encourage and support the reasoning and thorough examination of the faith when it leads to someone choosing something other than Christianity? Or does the support stop there because the desired outcome wasn’t achieved? Let’s be honest; believers only want someone to embrace doubt just long enough to come back to Jesus. Any other result is considered unacceptable and wrong.
What do you think about my take on it?
Some of the other replies made me chuckle:
… But Biblical faith is not irrational; it is based on reason: God did something and because of that we can believe he will do something else. That is reasonable. God said “Come, let us reason together.” And he often used reason to convince people. And he offered miracles as evidence. We need to realize that reason is the most wonderful gift that God gave mankind and use it. –Roger McKinney
… For you guys who need a scientific opinion on Scripture, check ANSWERS IN GENESIS. Pay a visit to their museum in Kentucky; get the books and videos. It is fascinating! –SF
In the most recent issue of Christianity Today, Charles Colson–owner of an infamous scandal-to-salvation testimony–takes on your favorite topic and mine: Atheism. I’ll respond to his article, When Atheists Believe, but I recommend checking it out for yourself to see if it sparks any thoughts.
Colson’s main point is that quite a few well-known atheists have come to Christianity after–as he claims–examining the rationality of the religion.
Faith and reason are not enemies. We are given reason as a gift. And while we can’t reason our way to God (only the power of God can transform fallen men—I’ve seen that in prisons for over 32 years), I have long believed that Christianity is the most rational explanation of reality. And that fact, winsomely explained, can powerfully influence thinking people to consider Christ’s claims.
Why can’t we reason our way to God? Because God is not reasonable! If he was, then we could know about him using our “god-given” gift. No leaps of faith necessary.
What this article does not do is explain why faith in a deity is rational. Perhaps I expect too much. Colson claims that “the Bible speaks most accurately to the human condition—the very definition of a rational choice. It is rational to choose the worldview that provides the best choice for living, consistent with the way life works.”
What does this have to do with: an eternal, invisible a god, a magical (yet genetically inherited) sinful nature that dooms us to agony, talking snakes, global floods, men living in fish for 3 days, magical objects, blood sacrifices, prophecies, or god-sponsored atrocities? What is “rational” about this “worldview” that teaches about a demigod who: was born of a deity-impregnated-virgin, came down to teach to one small ethnic group for a few years, sacrificed himself in a brutal manner to himself, rose bodily from the dead, floated into the sky to be with the invisible deity-daddy, and who runs an exclusive “love me or be tortured for eternity” club based on thought crime?
That’s what we’re calling the “most accurate” depiction of and solution to the human condition? Mythology?
Read the Rest! Post a comment (5)
Meghan on 
LeetheGirl on 
Loading ...