Church of Christ cleric urges science/religion dialogue

[Harry Lime Juice]

This was in The New York Times today.

Cleric Urges a Science and Religion Dialogue
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: January 31, 2008

Prompted by what he called the increasingly vocal hostility of some religions to science, and some scientists to religion, the president of the United Church of Christ has appealed for both groups to communicate more openly and to recognize, as he put it, that each has something to contribute to the other.

Faith is not a matter of “clinging to ancient misconceptions,” the leader, the Rev. John H. Thomas, wrote Tuesday in a letter to the church’s 1.2 million adherents, in 5,700 American congregations. “Today one of God’s most provocative voices is science.”

But, Mr. Thomas continued, scientific advances produce new technology, “and technology raises new questions of its own, conceptual and moral” that faith can address.

In an interview, he said he wanted to encourage engagement between science and religion “in ways that can enrich each other and challenge each other, particularly at a time when the prevailing public impression is that faith is an enemy of science or vice versa.” He said he was referring to recent books attacking religion but also “the creationist approach, the continuing caricature of the opposition of evolution and religion.”

Mr. Thomas also said he hoped congregations would “acknowledge and honor the scientists who are sitting in their pews.”

“Their vocation ought not to be ignored,” he said.

His letter is posted at (self-censored).


I'm unsure if he's pushing an agenda. His language is ambiguous.

[KingMerv00]

A science/religion dialogue would be fruitless. They speak different languages.

[Freethinker]

Faith is not a matter of “clinging to ancient misconceptions...

Ummm....Yes, it is.

[Freethinker]

Double

[Beth]

A science/religion dialogue would be fruitless. They speak different languages.


You wouldn't say a dialogue between, say, Iran and the U.S. would be fruitless because they speak different languages. The idea is to open up lines of communication and resolve problems between the two groups peaceably rather than with violence.

[Beth]

Ummm....Yes, it is.


I know that's a popular way of viewing it on this forum and accurate enough for describing fundamentalists of various stripes, but when you examine how liberal churches (such as the United Church of Christ) define faith, such a description isn't accurate for their belief system.

[KingMerv00]

You wouldn't say a dialogue between, say, Iran and the U.S. would be fruitless because they speak different languages. The idea is to open up lines of communication and resolve problems between the two groups peaceably rather than with violence.

There are no translators in a science/faith debate.

Faith and science exist in NOMA. One is based on evidence and the other is based on nothing. What exactly do you talk about?

I respect that political and social issues can be knocked around with some success but an actual dialogue on the core issues? Unlikely. Honestly faith has nothing of value to contribute.

[Upchurch]

I'm unsure if he's pushing an agenda. His language is ambiguous.
He is, but I don't think it is what you are thinking.

UCC (sometimes humorously referred to as "Unitarians Considering Christ") is one of a few liberal religions. I'll admit that I'm not 100% up to speed on them, but my understanding is that they are a pretty open minded group.

The way I read this, the agenda he is pushing is one against the fundamentalist dominance in America's religious perception. In other words, he's trying to say "Look, we're not all creationist idiots!"

[Upchurch]

Faith and science exist in NOMA.
I'm not familiar with the term. What do you mean?

[KingMerv00]

I'm not familiar with the term. What do you mean?

Non Overlapping Magisteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#Non-Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29)

Gould used it as a respectful nod to religion. I do not.

[Upchurch]

Honestly faith has nothing of value to contribute.
No?

Don't get me wrong, I am a scientist at heart. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing supernatural that I believe in, but I also recognize that science does not and cannot answer every question. Science can only answer those questions that can be answered by empirical means. Anything else is outside the scientific domain.

Is an act just? Is a war justified? What does it mean to love?

These are questions that are outside of science's domain. Religion, especially liberal religion imho, is a method for understanding these questions and maybe answering them.

[KingMerv00]

No?

Don't get me wrong, I am a scientist at heart. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing supernatural that I believe in, but I also recognize that science does not and cannot answer every question. Science can only answer those questions that can be answered by empirical means. Anything else is outside the scientific domain.

Is an act just? Is a war justified? What does it mean to love?

These are questions that are outside of science's domain. Religion, especially liberal religion imho, is a method for understanding these questions and maybe answering them.

There are lots of topics outside of science. This does not mean faith is of any value.

If you want to talk about whether or not a war is justified, faith is a terrible place to start. Try philosophy.

Faith, to me, is nothing but a glorified guess.

[Beth]

There are no translators in a science/faith debate. I think the article in the OP is about a dialog, not a debate. In a dialog, neither side is looking to 'win' by showing their argument is superior. They are simply trying to understand one another better.

Faith and science exist in NOMA. One is based on evidence and the other is based on nothing. What exactly do you talk about? Perhaps a discussion of what faith and science actually are as opposed to the misperceptions many have about both, such as the misperception that faith is based on nothing.

I respect that political and social issues can be knocked around with some success but an actual dialogue on the core issues? Unlikely. Honestly faith has nothing of value to contribute. I think that some success with resolving political and social issues would make the venture worthwhile. What do you consider the core issues if you don't think those are important enough to dialog about?

[Upchurch]

If you want to talk about whether or not a war is justified, faith is a terrible place to start. Try philosophy.
We may be stumbling over a semantic issue here. I believe the "faith" that is being referred to here is not the "belief without evidence" definition but more of the "synonymous with religion" definition. For more liberal religious groups like UCC, faith/religion is much closer to philosophy than it is for fundamentalist religions.

And that, I think, is exactly Thomas' point in the OP article. Fundamentalism has skewed public perception of religion into this wholly irrational (no pun intended) dogma that must be adhered to at all costs. That is not true for all religions, as Thomas indicates.

[ponderingturtle]

Ummm....Yes, it is.

I don't know, there are all kinds of new misconceptions that people cling to as well. It is not like the rapture has any real history behind the belief.

[KingMerv00]

We may be stumbling over a semantic issue here. I believe the "faith" that is being referred to here is not the "belief without evidence" definition but more of the "synonymous with religion" definition. For more liberal religious groups like UCC, faith/religion is much closer to philosophy than it is for fundamentalist religions.

The disagreement is probably semantic but I have to ask, why would someone in a liberal "religion" like UCC WANT to be associated with the word "faith".

What you call "fundamentalism" has simply been the norm for hundreds of years. "Faith" IS the belief without evidence.

Probably not worth arguing over since it is just a word but...it seems to me that it is just easier to recategorize certain beliefs than redefine the categories.

[Upchurch]

The disagreement is probably semantic but I have to ask, why would someone in a liberal "religion" like UCC WANT to be associated with the word "faith".
For a couple of reasons. One, as I said, I don't think he's necessarily using it the way you are in this case. Two, not everyone considers it a dirty word.


What you call "fundamentalism" has simply been the norm for hundreds of years. "Faith" IS the belief without evidence.
Fundamentalism itself is only about a hundred years old and it certainly wasn't "the norm" for most of that time. (Assuming it is even really the norm now and not just a very vocal minority.) Fundamentalism in its current form didn't really come around until the 1960's or 1970's.


Probably not worth arguing over since it is just a word but...it seems to me that it is just easier to recategorize certain beliefs than redefine the categories.
But see, it was the fundamentalist movement that redefined the categories in the first place through expert use of media saturation. What I'm saying is not a redefinition of categories but a reversion to older (I hesitate to say "original) definitions.

[KingMerv00]

For a couple of reasons. One, as I said, I don't think he's necessarily using it the way you are in this case. Two, not everyone considers it a dirty word.

Fair enough.



Fundamentalism itself is only about a hundred years old and it certainly wasn't "the norm" for most of that time. (Assuming it is even really the norm now and not just a very vocal minority.) Fundamentalism in its current form didn't really come around until the 1960's or 1970's.

But see, it was the fundamentalist movement that redefined the categories in the first place through expert use of media saturation. What I'm saying is not a redefinition of categories but a reversion to older (I hesitate to say "original) definitions.

Oh no...more semantics. By "fundamentalism" I mean a dogmatic reading of the holy book that floats your boat. Am I wrong to think that the Catholic Church (for example) thought for hundreds of years that black magic was real, the earth was 6000 years old, and homosexuality was evil? Is it really that new?

If fundamentalism IS new, what caused the Crusades and the Inquisition?

[Upchurch]

Oh no...more semantics. By "fundamentalism" I mean a dogmatic reading of the holy book that floats your boat. Am I wrong to think that the Catholic Church (for example) thought for hundreds of years that black magic was real, the earth was 6000 years old, and homosexuality was evil? Is it really that new?

If fundamentalism IS new, what caused the Crusades and the Inquisition?
eh.... semantics, yes, but you're lumping a whole complicated mess of religio-political garbage into a very small and simple waste bin labeled "fundamentalism".

I'll refer you to this unfortunately short thread we had on the history and definitions of fundamentalism (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74422).

The Crusades and Inquisition were mostly motivated, much like Constantine was when he adopted Christianity into the Roman Empire, by the desire for political and geographical control. In that regard, it was a much less "pure" motive than what the origins of fundamentalism. Although certainly no one can argue that fundamentalism didn't grow up rather quickly into its own political mechanism.

[KingMerv00]

I didn't mean to imply that the Crusades were purely a religious evil. Obviously, politics were involved as well. My point was that fundamentalism now is similar to fundamentalism then. Both claim dogmatic supernatural authority over man and, by extension, man-made law.

The Popes of the old days declared war for ostensibly religious reasons. Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to match God's law. I see little distinction between the two except that in modern times, fundamentalists can only WISH they were in control.

[Upchurch]

My point was that fundamentalism now is similar to fundamentalism then.
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at, It's like saying the U.S Government now is similar to the US Government in the first millennium. Yes, the US Government shares some traits with some ancient governments, but it doesn't makes sense to call those governments the "US Government".

Fundamentalism didn't exist until the late 1800's. There was no "fundamentalism" then. The modern definition of fundamentalism that you are using now didn't exist until the 1970's.

The overall point is that not all religions, or even the majority of religions, are fundamentalist.

[KingMerv00]

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at, It's like saying the U.S Government now is similar to the US Government in the first millennium. Yes, the US Government shares some traits with some ancient governments, but it doesn't makes sense to call those governments the "US Government".

Fundamentalism didn't exist until the late 1800's. There was no "fundamentalism" then. The modern definition of fundamentalism that you are using now didn't exist until the 1970's.

The overall point is that not all religions, or even the majority of religions, are fundamentalist.

What traits does fundamentalism have now that it didn't have in the past?What is the distinction to you?

[Upchurch]

What traits does fundamentalism have now that it didn't have in the past?What is the distinction to you?

Well, existence would be the biggest difference. Fundamentalism was a specific religious movement that originated at Princeton. It went mostly dormant until the Scopes Monkey Trial brought it back and gave it a distinctly anti-modernism bent. It went dormant again for a few decades before coming back strong.

[Oroborus]

“Today one of God’s most provocative voices is science.” :boggled: I think he was as confused saying it as I was reading it.

[Upchurch]

“Today one of God’s most provocative voices is science.” :boggled: I think he was as confused saying it as I was reading it.
What he is probably saying is that he views science as one of the ways his god speaks to us lowly humans.

[ponderingturtle]

What he is probably saying is that he views science as one of the ways his god speaks to us lowly humans.

As the universes ultimate dictator, you would think he could manage a more concise way of communicating.

[Upchurch]

As the universes ultimate dictator, you would think he could manage a more concise way of communicating.
Depends on what you think "God" is.

[ponderingturtle]

Depends on what you think "God" is.

As dictator stems from being the one who speaks, it fits perfectly with most definitions of god. It just depends on how benevolent vs malevolent you find him to be.

[Upchurch]

As dictator stems from being the one who speaks, it fits perfectly with most definitions of god. It just depends on how benevolent vs malevolent you find him to be.
Maybe this is the Unitarian in me, but you are assuming the definition includes a "who".

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe this is the Unitarian in me, but you are assuming the definition includes a "who".

Quite possibly.

[shadron]

If you want to talk about whether or not a war is justified, faith is a terrible place to start. Try philosophy.

Faith, to me, is nothing but a glorified guess.

Philosophy would be a great starting point, but unfortunately not one that will work with the vast bulk of people. The most abstract thought most of them have is religious, simply because they are steeped in it 24/7 from birth. The question becomes how much of their religion is really philosophy (with which such a dialog could be useful, and it sometimes is a surprisingly high amount, particularly in the liberal or center religions), and how much is faith and that part of politics and other outlooks that masquerades as faith, like all the faith-based hating that some of them do so well.

If you're going to have a dialog, you have to start on common ground, and Plato, Sarte and Hume aren't going to be of much help. Better that you should try to extract philosophy from their religious background, and see if that works.

[patnray]

There are no translators in a science/faith debate.

Faith and science exist in NOMA. One is based on evidence and the other is based on nothing. What exactly do you talk about?

I respect that political and social issues can be knocked around with some success but an actual dialogue on the core issues? Unlikely. Honestly faith has nothing of value to contribute.

Ethics. Social policy. Educational policy and funding. The importance of maintaining a secular government. Despite differences in core beliefs, most moderately religious people recognize the importance of secular government and are our allies in preventing the obsessive-compulsive fundamentalists from taking over.

I disagree about the NOMA. It is only true if the religious admit that their god has absolutely no effect on the physical world. If they pray for earthly effects, then they reject NOMA and open their claims to scientific evaluation.

[Freethinker]

I know that's a popular way of viewing it on this forum and accurate enough for describing fundamentalists of various stripes, but when you examine how liberal churches (such as the United Church of Christ) define faith, such a description isn't accurate for their belief system.

Liberal religions (At least in Christianity) and their members are IMO, bigger hypocrites than the fundies. What they have done, is to back down from their basic beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence that the bible is a ridiculous load of crap, but they then pretend that they have some basis for the beliefs they have left. At least the fundies believe what the bible tells them to believe.

I'm not sure what the liberal churches have. It's more like Trekkies who go over the edge and dress the part in their daily lives. They want it to be true so badly, that even though they know it isn't, they still pretend it is because they are afraid to let it go.

[KingMerv00]

I disagree about the NOMA. It is only true if the religious admit that their god has absolutely no effect on the physical world. If they pray for earthly effects, then they reject NOMA and open their claims to scientific evaluation.

I don't think we disagree really. I believe that the magisteria don't overlap. This doesn't mean they are equal magisteria.

If a person of faith tries to drag religion across that NOMA barrier, they are in for a world of hurt.

[KingMerv00]

Well, existence would be the biggest difference. Fundamentalism was a specific religious movement that originated at Princeton. It went mostly dormant until the Scopes Monkey Trial brought it back and gave it a distinctly anti-modernism bent. It went dormant again for a few decades before coming back strong.

Yep...semantics. You are using an uncommon (though possibly the original) definition of the word "fundamentalism".

[Upchurch]

Yep...semantics. You are using an uncommon (though possibly the original) definition of the word "fundamentalism".
Not that uncommon:

fundamentalism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism)
1 aoften capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs
2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

[Last of the Fraggles]

I don't see what dialogue there is to be had.

Religion adds nothing to science except a muddying of the waters and a demand for their opinion to be heard and acted on.

Science adds nothing to religion except to point out the mistakes in their holy books.

What can come of this dialogue that would really benefit society?

[patnray]

I don't think we disagree really. I believe that the magisteria don't overlap. This doesn't mean they are equal magisteria.

If a person of faith tries to drag religion across that NOMA barrier, they are in for a world of hurt.
I like that phrase "NOMA barrier". I don't think most religites who embrace the NOMA idea realize they are placing a barrier between their beliefs and reality, but I'll be sure to point that out to them.

[patnray]

What can come of this dialogue that would really benefit society?
We're discussing dialogue with religious moderates. So the answer is more rational social and educational policies. An alliance to maintain secular government against the fundamentalist drive for theocracy. More acceptance of diverging beliefs and less bigotry from both sides.

Progress comes in small steps. Moderates have their eyes at least partly open, and many of them recognize (or can be shown) what a threat fundamentalism is to social and technological progress and to their own beliefs and lifestyles.

[ceo_esq]

I don't think most religites who embrace the NOMA idea realize they are placing a barrier between their beliefs and reality, but I'll be sure to point that out to them.

You appear to be identifying "reality" solely with the empirical magisterium, but it's not clear why that is warranted. Also, why would this be a case of certain people placing a barrier? Aren't such "barriers" simply a figurative way of referring to the inherent limitations of different magisteria?

[KingMerv00]

Aren't such "barriers" simply a figurative way of referring to the inherent limitations of different magisteria?

Yes. The limitation of faith is that it cannot be used to determine anything about objective reality.

[ceo_esq]

Yes. The limitation of faith is that it cannot be used to determine anything about objective reality.

Perhaps more accurately, it cannot give confirmation of any description of that part of objective reality that consists in the empirical domain (the physical universe). Whether there is any part of objective reality that is not part of the empirical domain is a separate question, but it's worth noting that it's a question (a) to which you appear simply to be assuming the answer and (b) the answer to which science neither addresses nor has any interest in addressing.

Among the limitations of empirical science, of course, are that it is (i) purely descriptive rather than prescriptive and (ii) unable to offer a description of anything to which its method cannot be applied. For example, it cannot confirm the truth of a value-proposition or even whether a value-proposition has an objective answer. Nor does it address propositions which must be either objectively true or false (for example, do human beings have an immortal soul?) but which lie within a different magisterium.

[KingMerv00]

Perhaps more accurately, it cannot give confirmation of any description of that part of objective reality that consists in the empirical domain (the physical universe). Whether there is any part of objective reality that is not part of the empirical domain is a separate question, but it's worth noting that it's a question (a) to which you appear simply to be assuming the answer and (b) the answer to which science neither addresses nor has any interest in addressing.

Faith can be used to confirm any configuration of objective reality. It is therefore, at best, useless. At worst dangerous.

Among the limitations of empirical science, of course, are that it is (i) purely descriptive rather than prescriptive and (ii) unable to offer a description of anything to which its method cannot be applied. For example, it cannot confirm the truth of a value-proposition or even whether a value-proposition has an objective answer. Nor does it address propositions which must be either objectively true or false (for example, do human beings have an immortal soul?) but which lie within a different magisterium.

I never said science could do everything.

[ceo_esq]

Faith can be used to confirm any configuration of objective reality. It is therefore, at best, useless. At worst dangerous.

I'm not sure what you mean by "faith can be used to confirm any configuration of objective reality". Reality presumably only has one configuration (the real one). While I'd agree that faith is at worst dangerous, it's harder to defend the notion that it is at best useless. Certainly it seems possible for faith to be put to good use. And in the logically possible case that an article of faith is objectively correct, adhering to it is obviously of great potential utility. For example, it's logically possible that what faith X tells you about your eternal reward is true, in which case you may find in the hereafter that it was very useful indeed. The difficulty is that an advance demonstration of the likelihood of such potential utility being realized is not, generally speaking, forthcoming. Yet that's not the same thing as a complete absence of utility; if it were, we could equally assert that philosophy, ethics, politics and nearly every other domain with a metaphysical component are at best useless (and perhaps you believe that too; I don't know).


I never said science could do everything.

No one said that you said that. My response about the limitations of science was just the natural complement to your observation about faith.

[KingMerv00]

I'm not sure what you mean by "faith can be used to confirm any configuration of objective reality". Reality presumably only has one configuration (the real one). While I'd agree that faith is at worst dangerous, it's harder to defend the notion that it is at best useless.

Let me reword my assertion slightly. By "faith" I mean belief without empirical evidence. Faith is at best useless and at worst dangerous when trying to discern the nature of objective reality. I'm didn't mean to say that faith could not have good social consequences.

Since evidence is not used in the formation of a faith based worldview, one could believe literally anything at all. I could, if I used faith, believe that I can fly. I could ignore all of the contrary sensory information I receive from the universe by declaring it a "test of my faith". Therefore, faith is useless in constructing an objective world view.

Using faith, you could accidently stumble on objective truth but it would only be a lucky guess.

[KingMerv00]

No one said that you said that. My response about the limitations of science was just the natural complement to your observation about faith.

The difference is that science can discover SOMETHING about reality. Faith cannot, except by chance. (See post above.