Search This Blog

Monday, April 28, 2014

Science, Faith, and Truth

     If history has taught us anything it has taught us that science gradually reveals truth.  I have faith in the truth that science reveals for several reasons. First, scientific truth is demonstrable. It helps us understand better all the things that occur around our world and in the cosmos.  I say, “understand better,” because we are far from knowing all there is to know. Life is a magnificent journey of discovery.

      1st century civilizations had no concepts of tectonic plates related to volcanoes, jet streams and weather, nor of human eggs in women that made them indispensable participants in procreation. These scientific advances have helped us understand some basic realities of our world that do not require explanations involving one or more gods intervening in world events by way of natural calamities or by instigating virgin births.

     Because ultimate truth is so far ahead of what we understand at this moment, scientific knowledge is always evolving. How we understand things now will gradually change as we learn more. Just as humans have had to leave behind ideas of a flat earth, ethers, and demons, I want to leave behind the erroneous beliefs I have today as higher understandings of truth are demonstrated and reported.

     It is also the case that popular public leaders or movements do not and cannot plan truth, or scientific discoveries, ahead of time. Truth is discovered over time via scientific studies performed by research communities. Whereas "truth"  from a religious perspective is decided by human beings (usually men) in councils. In contrast to that, literally, any one in the world can suggest an idea that could become a new scientific understanding, and eventually, an accepted theory. In a way, scientific findings are a more valid means of discovery of new knowledge, because they are objective and open to participation by anyone.

     While participation in a scientific community may be open to anyone, you must follow some very strict rules. The positive side of that is that these rules have nothing to do with who you are, your gender, ethnic background, religion, race, or even, believe it or not, your academic background.  They do, however, have to do with how you carry out and report your scientific studies. Even though these rules are very strict they are universally available for anyone to learn and follow.  The overriding requirement is that your research procedures follow the scientific method of inquiry.

     If you use the scientific method, then the question you are studying will be clearly stated and understandable, especially by others interested in the same area of knowledge. How you acquire data and study your question will be described in such detail that others could replicate your study if they so choose, and some will.  

          The conclusions you make must be rationally based on the data you collect and analyze.  If you discover something new and different, you make that claim and provide the data to support it. If others replicate your study and get the same results, they may support your conclusions, or, perhaps, they will provide even better explanations.

     Scientific inquiry is a community effort in which everyone agrees that they will ultimately accept the conclusions supported by the preponderance of evidence across all the research submitted by everyone studying that question.  In other words, if, across all studies, something looks, sounds, feels, smells, tastes, and acts like a chicken, then all the scientists are willing to declare that it is, in fact, a chicken. This will be true even if some of the scientists, or even all of them, started off totally convinced it was a cow.  

            My example may be facetious, but my point is completely serious. Scientists change their minds when their hypotheses are not supported by data, but alternate hypotheses are. This is the greatest power of the scientific method and the reason why accepted scientific theories are our best descriptors of truth.  All that religious institutions can claim is that their views of truth are based on what they collectively want to believe.

     Now, let’s consider this frequently misused word, “faith.” What value is there in having faith in something that has no demonstrable effect on life? If beliefs do, in fact, have an effect on life events, then they can be studied, scientifically. Yes, that means even the results of prayer or any kind of supernatural intervention. There should be no doubt, for example, that acts of love can significantly change the course of human events and those changes can be studied scientifically.

       If you don't want to study the effects of your religious beliefs scientifically, that's fine, but don't say it can't be done. There is almost always a way to study it. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You can decide for yourself that they are, but that's an assertion that has only your wish as a basis.

       I have faith in the truth that creates and describes the world in which I live and through which I experience the impact of human spirituality, including my own. I also have faith that all that we know fits perfectly with the ultimate facts that explain everything we don’t, now, know.  Truth simply is, and will always be what it has always been.

       I have complete faith in the ultimate power, intelligence, and organization behind the creation and evolution of our universe and life on planet Earth, because I am part of that whole process. Whatever the total power and intelligence is, it is far beyond my capacity to understand, even though I am part of it with every breath I take.  

     I believe all of us achieve this same personal sense of wonder and mystery at some time in our lives and feel a desire to name and describe this unknowable prime cause. Eventually, we do and we have called this ultimate truth, God. 

         Then we feel compelled to describe God in more humanly understandable ways. This is how we create theologies, and from theologies we create religions. All theologies and religions are man-made stories about what we’d like reality to be. This is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong, it is just how the human mind appears to work. I know I’m like this.

     If we could summarize the current public perception of Christian orthodoxy, it would be something like the following:

            • Because Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, all of us bear the penalty of that sin which is death, unless God forgives us.

            • Even though Mary was a virgin, God caused her to become pregnant with Jesus so Jesus would be born the one and only Son of God.

            • Jesus was crucified to redeem mankind of the original sin of Adam and Eve, but only those who accept Jesus as their savior are saved.

            • In three days Jesus arose from the dead and later ascended into Heaven

            • Jesus will be returning to judge everyone and eventually defeat Satan, the source of all lies and evil against God.

     This is the Christian story according to many conservative Christian believers, which they hold to be literally true.  It is claimed that this is what is presented in the Bible, and the Bible is viewed as God’s Word to mankind. For them, the Bible is literally true, consistent, complete, and infallible.

     However, none of these claims about theology, Jesus, Mary, or the Bible can be supported by anything other than the fact that, that is what these individuals want Christian dogma to be. In fact, most of these claims make no sense when you read the Bible carefully enough to understand the contexts of the original verses that are used to support fundamentalist dogma. It just isn’t there, not in the Bible. It’s a story, outside of the Bible that Christian fundamentalists keep telling and retelling themselves because that is what they want to believe. It is, also, what they want everyone to believe, so they, themselves, will not falter from someone else’s rational thinking.

     I find it very interesting that fundamentalist Christians say that this story, this dogma, must be accepted on faith because it is spiritual and is beyond rationalization.  This means I must believe something that has no hope of objective verification. And, even though it defies the current state of human knowledge about birth and death, and our most basic sensibilities (i.e. a father demanding the sacrificial torture and death of his own son for payment of a debt) I am to believe it as real history and their concepts of judgment, heaven, and hell as the real future.  All of us can really do better than this.

     It is interesting that much of this Christian dogma is based on the teachings of Paul, not Jesus, or his brother James, or Peter and John, two of his disciples active in the Jerusalem Brotherhood following Jesus’ crucifixion.  Paul specifically states he did not confer with anyone else in developing his teachings, but only, “the risen Christ.” In other words, Paul made up his Christology on his own, for his own reasons, and for his own churches primarily consisting of gentiles converting to Paul’s version of Christ, beyond Judaism.

     James, the brother of Jesus was the primary leader of the Jerusalem Brotherhood. These were Jews who believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish expectations for a Messiah.  Peter and John, assisted James and all of them clashed with Paul concerning Paul’s teachings. 

       It is widely recognized that the Book of Acts is not an accurate portrayal of Paul’s truly difficult relationship with Peter and the leadership in Jerusalem.  What Paul wrote, himself, contradicts the author of Acts, so Paul's letters must be considered the better source for descriptions of his own relationships with the leaders of the Jerusalem Brotherhood.

 When the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 70 CE that ended a Jewish rebellion that started around 66 CE.   As a result, Jews were generally despised throughout the Roman Empire and the Jerusalem Brotherhood disappeared. 

         However, this development fit Paul’s message perfectly which was, for the gentiles he was converting, overtly non-Jewish in that Jewish observances were not considered necessary. The “Torah of Christ” replaced the Torah of Moses according to Paul. Eventually, gentiles took over the movement that was to become known as Christianity.

     Paul’s message was really far afield from Jesus’ teachings. Yet, over time, it is Paul’s message that got remembered in the version of Christianity that gradually defeated all the others in its rise to power.  Yes, there were many Christianity's that had emerged, but it was Paul's teachings that drove out all the others.

        Jesus was an observant Jew who taught that approaching others with an attitude of love was more important than conforming to strict religious law. Jesus suggested that following his spiritual example was the way to establish the Kingdom Of Heaven on earth. But, Jewish law and teachings were still a foundation. Bottom line, it is not accurate to say that Jesus founded Christianity as it is often suggested, today. 

           However, Paul actively worked within synagogues to separate his Christ version of Judaism from traditional Judaism. Paul's perspective eventually won the theological battles among the many versions of early Christianity to become the orthodox standard sanctioned by the Roman Emperor a couple of centuries after Paul died.

     It appears that accepting Christian dogma on faith, alone, also requires some consideration as to whose story one should accept. Baptists have their story, just as Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Lutherans, Mormons and Methodists, all have their own stories. Listen to each story and go with the one that makes sense and inspires you. 

        There is no doubt in my mind that we carefully choose the spiritual world in which we want to live based on the stories we hear from various religions or spiritual fellowships. Even if their dogma is irrational and irrelevant, most religions are too closely bound to their worldly possessions and to the passionate support of their followers to have any desire to change.  We should be humble enough that we can admit this, at least to ourselves.

    However, religions do, also, get around to teaching how to apply their religious tenets to everyday life events. In other words, they all tend to have scriptural teachings that are metaphysical. This is the primary purpose of sermons or homilies. Ministers and priests draw spiritual insights from Bible passages and discuss how these insights can help humans make decisions that will improve their lives and the lives of their families, communities, and ultimately, the world.

       This is the area where most religions can have huge areas of agreement. All will likely teach caring for one another with love and respect. All will likely teach the importance of honesty and trustworthiness. All will likely teach techniques for being less selfish, less proud, and more considerate of others. 

        You could say that most religions teach the practical lessons of life in ways that are strikingly similar to those found in the parables and sayings of Jesus. That shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, truth is universal and immutable and not the property of any one human religious or non-religious organization or tradition. Truth can only be discovered, not manufactured.

     The question I have for everyone is why don’t we just start with metaphysical interpretations of our religious literature and leave it at that?  Always start from the viewpoint of Love. It’s the literal dogma and emotions around favored perspectives that cause anger, conflict, and wars, so let’s just not go there to begin with.  Are we not wise enough to do that?

     It seems to me that what Jesus taught is reflected more universally in other religions than what Paul taught. Jesus was about making the here and now perfect by following God’s commandment to always live from a perspective of  love. Although Paul, too, could be elegant in describing love, his primary mission was to institutionalize among gentiles his personal view of Jesus, as the risen Christ, the first of a new kind of cosmic being.

     Whose story are you going to follow with unwavering commitment? Whose story do you want to accept as truth so you don’t have to think about it any more? You can allow science to be a helpful, practical companion on your spiritual journey or you can reject that part of science that seems to conflict with the story you decide to follow. The first guarantees unlimited growth in understanding and the second guarantees a life of conflict and judgment towards others. What would Jesus do?


     Our lives bend to the direction of our choices. In making our decisions I suggest we first gain wisdom from God as Love, which is what Jesus always did.