I think that it depends on the personality of the person making the inquiry and your definition of "faith".

In my mind, one of the greatest evils in the world is the feeling of certitude. The feeling that we are fundamentally right and others are fundamentally wrong. Some people find incredible solace in feelings of certitude and find that they can't deal with a world in which there is no certainty. They need an "Ultimate Truth" to cling to, be it religious, political, or scientific. Armed with this certitude, the then feel free to do horrific things to others in order to make sure that the world conforms to their feelings, rather than the other way around.

I know dozens of people who have looked for Ultimate Truth and for the most part they have found IT. Then there are others, such as myself, who have looked for the same and discovered that the Truth simply is not out there (although we do seem to be an extreme minority).

It is not necessarily the case that finding out more about religion, is going to diminish one's faith. Cults immerse their followers in their worldview to the exclusion of others and focus on subjective experience for a reason. Similarly, atheists tend to forcefully push scientific empiricism (although they often mistakenly call themselves "Rationalists") that holds that only objective knowledge can have any meaning. So discovering more about science does not necessarily lead to greater faith.

I assume that when you discuss "faith", you are not referring to the religious dogmas of your upbringing (as this would seem to contradict the implied position expressed in your question), but instead to a broader feeling of spirituality, awe and perhaps interconnection with the universe and other people. To me it seems that what you are discovering is one aspect of what I would call "Enlightenment".

In my mind, this aspect of Enlightenment is not some achievable state, but rather a sense of understanding how much you do not know.* It is an appreciation of the Infinite and one's relation to it as a finite being. The irony is that the greater your actual knowledge, the greater your awareness of what you have still to learn and therefore your potential for "Enlightenment". A preschooler knows very little and has no real understanding of the sheer scope of things they don't know. But a university professor (should) know much, much more and so has a much greater potential for understanding that they "know" even less than the preschooler.

Of course, this isn't guaranteed, as many professors you meet will be just as wrapped up in their own certitude as the most fundamentalist believer, but the potential is still there. Enlightenment as I describe it, can only be achieved by acknowledging, rather than avoiding the scope of one's ignorance and by engaging with it in an experiential way. Once one has confronted the emotional demons of uncertainty it is possible to step into a sort of "grace", where anything is possible and the idea that our solitary universe is all that exists seems a rather antiquated and limited notion.

Within this framework, it is easy to see why you would feel the way you do regarding faith and science. Religion, focusing as it does on the certitude of dogma is fundamentally opposed to gaining any real new knowledge about the universe. It is orientated towards stagnation and stasis. Science, on the other hand is the process of learning and discovery and is orientated towards growth and change. By engaging with what you know, you realise what you don't and this feeds an ever increasing sense of wonder and perhaps even joy.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong, but that is the fun of knowing that there is so much that I don't know! Irrespective of how many lifetimes I live, I'll never stop learning. ;-)

* One of my favourite sayings is, "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him". Having been raised in a Christian culture, I never understood this seemingly blasphemous statement. But once I began to understand how much there was that I could never even conceive, I understood its import. In the saying, Buddha represents Enlightenment and means to remind people that if they ever think that they have achieved this state of being, they need to discard that delusion and continue the journey.

By the way: what (study) shows this result?

Two points:

1. Biblically based Theology which does not dwell in the speculative, but what God's Word, the Scriptures actually teach to know God and His will do not have their faith diminish, but rather increased. How can studying to know our Lord more and how to apply His Word to our lives so as to grow into godliness dirinish one's faith? Only when theology gets lost into speculations, myths, and empty ritualism will one's faith diminish; like empty carbs that does the body no benefit (1 Timothy 6:20; Titus 3:9-10).

2. Modern science was developed primarily by Biblical Christian worldview: that God created a universe of consistancy and order. Newer teaching like evolution are based more on myth and belief than substanciated fact; more smoke than fire.

Perhaps once to investigate: reading theology gives too many dogmas of the institutes / authorities because the recent crisis in the church? , reading sciences is encouraging?

One of the interesting aspects of researching cosmological and cosmogony is the ability to think the question of why, because by asking the question of why can lead to the use of one's imagination and innovation. The question of asking why leads into the experience of the mysteries of the cosmos and nature.

This is weekend magazine research - ie no basis in fact but a catchy headline. Theologians and scientists are closer together than since the 1500s.

I think that it depends more on what you bring to the party. A man like Daniel Dennet starts with a mission and drives home with all deliberate speed. Oddly enough this makes him a devote of absolute faith in science. Those that believe that "Religion" is necessary for the survival of humanity be enforcing a moral agenda are acting on the assumption that humans are evil, violent, godless animals that must be coralled. Evincing a decided lack of faith in humanity, or anything else for that matter. This is the lesson of the symbol of the Yin-Yang Faith contains the seed of scepticism in its heart and scepticism contains the seed of unquestioning faith. I have absolute faith in the human race and the ancient wisdom, any ancient wisdom, in the matter of human nature.

Looking at both from a scientific veiwpoint could be rather difficult because the Bible is full of so many contradictions, and questions relating to the idea of fairness. For instance, a chosen race makes no moral sense. In science, the very complex nature of atomic structure being at the root of all matter including life raises the idea that some very complex force may be behind it all. Also answering one question in science usually raises many more. Knowledge and Wisdom are therefore infinite.

Dear Alison, what kind of faith are you talking about? If by faith you mean the individual believer's feeling of conviction in and commitment to God and God's revelation as popularly understood, you might be right. It has been observed in Nigerian universities that there is more fundamentalism and religious extremism in the faculties of natural sciences and technology than in the humanities where critical thinking is taught. If this phenomenon is what you mean by stronger and weaker faith, you have a point. If, however, you should talk of enlightened and blind faith, the result of the observation could be reversed. St. Paul observed that the problem with the faith of his unbelieving contemporaries was "that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened" (Romans 10:2 I). I submit that the problem of faith in our own time has not changed. Theology purifies and enlightens subjective faith without necessarily increasing it. But theology certainly increases one's understanding of the objective faith that believers are supposed to uphold.

"Faith," like anything else that exists in the human universe is the product of human nature. No matter what they did, why they thought they were doing it, what they were actually doing and the secret personal agenda that they never admited to (...you haven't, have you?) what "they" did and the product of thier machinations are the product of human nature. As to religion, thats just an attempt to control society through spirituality (not the same thing, period) rather than through human weakness and insecurity like the wealthy and political do. Science is not immune to this phenomenon, as most scientists would emphatically protest that the "objectivity" of science makes that impossible. Being a human being, and therefor automatically prone to personal agenda's hidden traumasa and lusts, scientists are uniquely vulnerable to the sub-conscious agenda of the suppression of competing forces, just like religion was hundreds of years ago in Europe. Oh, BTW western history is NOT the history of the world.

Ultimately, faith is a personal thing. As a Catholic who has extensive training in engineering, physics, and law my studies forced me to view evidence which made my religious background seem truly vapid. As a side hobby I studied different religions, in an attempt to better understand why there were so many diverging explanations.

I came to the conclusion that, on average, the religions of the world were constructed by and evolved from ancient peoples. They had very little background in actual science (although were surprisingly advanced engineers sometimes) and probably just tried to explain things as best as possible.

For religions that demand interaction between God(s) and man, then imagine attempting to explain quantum mechanics to a shepherd 2000 years ago. Under the assumption that even quantum mechanics and relativity will one day be proven inaccurate, and that something more complicated is the actual truth, imagine explaining that to the shepherd or even a king. The reality is that like parents who tell children tales about Santa Clause, any God or Gods back then would have had to realize we were not advanced enough to comprehend the truth, and so they gave us a few stories to hold us over while we discovered things on our own.

What I'm getting at is this, the various religions treat God as if God was stupid. Science is uncovering all the evidence that whoever our creator(s) is (was), they were advanced beyond even today's comprehension. I was discussing this with a Jewish friend a few years back and he described it like this: some people believe that God opens the Lego box and can build the object on the cover by hand perfectly; some give him a little more credit and believe that God opens the Lego box and tips it on its side, the Legos falls into place perfectly the first time; the reality is that God played with hyrdrogen and anti-hydrogens, which resulted in the formation of the universe and this little corner called Earth, where molecular evolution resulted in humankind springing force, and we play with Legos and build the item on the cover for God's amusement.

From the post by Jimmy Davis "What I'm getting at is this, the various religions treat God as if God was stupid. " This would probably stem from our perceptions of ourselves and the severe limitations on our intellectual capabilities, as well as our emotional and spiritual evolution. This is a very clear and well elucidated observation. As to the truth; there are an ever increasing number of high-level professionals in both camps that are beginning to realize that part of the problem is imagining that there is "A Truth" that we can uncover. No matter how fundamental what we have learned seems to be and no matter how correct it appears, it will soon be abandoned for the next level of truth that we uncover, and the next and ....well, you get the idea. The universe is evolving too. (none but a fool would believe in a static "Platonic" nature of the universe now...) No doubt at a rate and on a scale that we will never truly comprehend. That is the thing within that tells us that "God" does exist, our inate understanding that the world is beyond our knowing and nothing is "impossible" per se. I believe that the next thing is Metaphysics. As an actual structured concept, and freed of its unfortunate associations Metaphysics has the potential of organizing and making axiomatic the unknown as well as the ever-evolving known. I once heard a lecturer state; "physics has a wealth of evidence and a dearth of theories to explain it, Metaphysics has a wealth of theories and a dearth of evidence to prove any, might not the two complement each other. (note: sorry, I don't remember the name and it was on Google Video some years back...)

There is one clear enemy of gaining knowledge, and that enemy quite often clearly pops up in theology. That enemy is "dogma". Anytime we restrict what can be true to a simple box, we can only do so by eliminating aspects of the truth.

However, to exempt much of what passes as science, especially when it touches upon God, from being dogma is an error. Science has a much broader playing field at present to explore without hitting dogma, but many scientists who work close to the boundaries still run into dogma, and must decide whetheer to accept it and cease to be scientists, or reject it and risk being labeled "mad scientists" and become largely ignored.

Is the issue that is being discussed one of how christian socialism becomes personal socialism?

I only differ with William Mayor in one respect; I believe that dogmaticism is a bit more prevelant in science that admitted to. Einstein was told that everything was known, only the details needed to be "filled in." While just one example it shows how human failing creeps in invisablely no matter what the subject. While scientific canons are needed and important, such as the scientific method and fundamental observations that are consistant with known phenomenon, "dogma" emerges when a given individual is accorded great status, that leads to a greater tendency to accept his or her "conclusions," and is possesed of deep personal flaws and skewed perceptions (such as; "the irrational accuracy of the fundamental constants proves intentionality in the creation of the universe" or; "the completeness of quantum physics eliminates the need for god") which, being human, they are. Others, as Mr. Mayor observes above attempting to survive then accept, prima facia, the theory proposed as "likely true" without testing and operate upon that assumption. ("...we needn't test that data, its already been well established that..."). What is beyond Science and Religion is neither of them, created from their "marriage," and not yet known, therefor adherence to the conclusions of either is risky at best., IMHO.

Some atheists denied God’s existence simply because the world is full of evil and suffering that it is difficult to believe that a good God exist. Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, William Hamilton, Thomas Altizer and Harvey Cox were some of the atheists who reject the existence of God.

The Agnostics would say that they do not know whether God is there or not; no matter whether God exists or not, the world will continue to exist as it is. As P.D. Feinberg said, agnosticism is to be contrasted with atheism and pantheism, as well as theism and Christianity.

St. Paul testifies the existence of God in the word, “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). The evolutionist and agnostic Robert Jastrow shocked the scientific community by admitting that he was unable to explain the existence of the universe without God (or read “theology and faith”) several years ago.

That theology and science were constantly at war is correct when we study the history of the interaction between science and theology. Here, I think, what J.P. Moreland said is not only interesting but also very helpful: “...the theological beliefs were already reasonable without science, but scientific discoveries have given further support to them [theological beliefs].” Discussing and analysing the attempt to interpret theology in the light of contemporary trends of thought and the science, especially with special focus on the science of climate change, Lou Ann Trost says that specifically, theology needs to incorporate the sciences’ best current understanding about the world, humans and humans’ place in relation to the rest of nature. The point to be noted is that both science and theology complement each other. This understanding led to have dialogue between science and religion/theology today.

In the interest of adding something new to a well-worn discussion, the Urantia Book makes an unexpected distinction between (A) a system of mind, and (B) a person using that system of mind. [For details of this distinction, see its Foreword.] As one might expect, when discussing facts accessible via the scientific method, its authors point to reason; when discussing techniques of personality assurance, they point to "faith" and "truth". In one place, in typically evocative style, they put it like this:

"Faith most willingly carries reason along as far as reason can go and then goes on with wisdom to the full philosophic limit; and then it dares to launch out upon the limitless and never-ending universe journey in the sole company of TRUTH. " (1141.5) 103:9.7.

In short, they describe how a (potentially enduring) person makes more-or-less use of some (transient) system of mind. That system of mind depends on reason to blend facts and beliefs into a frame in which to think. The person then spends a brief life choosing how to respond to mind-derived perceptions, woven within that frame. But while that mind-frame is bounded (by its "full philosophic limit"), the person remains free to "launch out upon... "

Note that when it comes to techniques of care and feeding, both the person and the mind have their peculiar (and very different) needs.

I agree with Jimmy Davis "faith is a personal thing", and many theological shools could't convey genuinely beleiving in God. Since they always try to compete with the scientific disciplines, these schools become prosaic. There is a very important aspect, if you get scientific knowlegde from authentic scientists, they don't forced you their own ideological faith. Unfortunately many scientists represent strong faith in different unclear backround beliefs. The unbiased natural science be able to prove (biology, genetics, based on mathematics ) that personal soul is exist. And this is not the same, mind, and brain. Certainly these foundings correlate with many consequences on natural sciences, but don't contradict the scientific facts.

I think this must be a common experience. But if you read the right theologians it is not. For example, reading Thomas Aquinas or Nicholas of Cusa shows the coordination that is possible between faith and science. Other theologians seem bent on preen their own feathers and can do a lot of damage by way of half-baked thinking. The medievals strike me as having more depth than the moderns - but I am a student of medieval thought and may be biased. - M. Führer

I think that it depends on the personality of the person making the inquiry and your definition of "faith".

In my mind, one of the greatest evils in the world is the feeling of certitude. The feeling that we are fundamentally right and others are fundamentally wrong. Some people find incredible solace in feelings of certitude and find that they can't deal with a world in which there is no certainty. They need an "Ultimate Truth" to cling to, be it religious, political, or scientific. Armed with this certitude, the then feel free to do horrific things to others in order to make sure that the world conforms to their feelings, rather than the other way around.

I know dozens of people who have looked for Ultimate Truth and for the most part they have found IT. Then there are others, such as myself, who have looked for the same and discovered that the Truth simply is not out there (although we do seem to be an extreme minority).

It is not necessarily the case that finding out more about religion, is going to diminish one's faith. Cults immerse their followers in their worldview to the exclusion of others and focus on subjective experience for a reason. Similarly, atheists tend to forcefully push scientific empiricism (although they often mistakenly call themselves "Rationalists") that holds that only objective knowledge can have any meaning. So discovering more about science does not necessarily lead to greater faith.

I assume that when you discuss "faith", you are not referring to the religious dogmas of your upbringing (as this would seem to contradict the implied position expressed in your question), but instead to a broader feeling of spirituality, awe and perhaps interconnection with the universe and other people. To me it seems that what you are discovering is one aspect of what I would call "Enlightenment".

In my mind, this aspect of Enlightenment is not some achievable state, but rather a sense of understanding how much you do not know.* It is an appreciation of the Infinite and one's relation to it as a finite being. The irony is that the greater your actual knowledge, the greater your awareness of what you have still to learn and therefore your potential for "Enlightenment". A preschooler knows very little and has no real understanding of the sheer scope of things they don't know. But a university professor (should) know much, much more and so has a much greater potential for understanding that they "know" even less than the preschooler.

Of course, this isn't guaranteed, as many professors you meet will be just as wrapped up in their own certitude as the most fundamentalist believer, but the potential is still there. Enlightenment as I describe it, can only be achieved by acknowledging, rather than avoiding the scope of one's ignorance and by engaging with it in an experiential way. Once one has confronted the emotional demons of uncertainty it is possible to step into a sort of "grace", where anything is possible and the idea that our solitary universe is all that exists seems a rather antiquated and limited notion.

Within this framework, it is easy to see why you would feel the way you do regarding faith and science. Religion, focusing as it does on the certitude of dogma is fundamentally opposed to gaining any real new knowledge about the universe. It is orientated towards stagnation and stasis. Science, on the other hand is the process of learning and discovery and is orientated towards growth and change. By engaging with what you know, you realise what you don't and this feeds an ever increasing sense of wonder and perhaps even joy.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong, but that is the fun of knowing that there is so much that I don't know! Irrespective of how many lifetimes I live, I'll never stop learning. ;-)

* One of my favourite sayings is, "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him". Having been raised in a Christian culture, I never understood this seemingly blasphemous statement. But once I began to understand how much there was that I could never even conceive, I understood its import. In the saying, Buddha represents Enlightenment and means to remind people that if they ever think that they have achieved this state of being, they need to discard that delusion and continue the journey.

Greg your words are like fresh air. As you have brought up the wisdom of the "other" savior my inspiration comes from the 14 unanswerable questions. Buddha refused to acknowledge the asking of any of these questions. They include anything connected to infinity, eternity or the human soul. I am encouraged by the level and sophistication of the dialog here. Faith as Jimmy Davis said "faith is a personal thing," and indeed it is. Some have faith in science (mainly scientists and their funders), others have faith in communism, Christianity or gambling (there are those that translate the rules of gambling into the template of a life well-lived) Faith is a process not a goal or object of worship. Religion has only failed in that after many centuries the spiritual revelation of the founder is long go and its down ot either dogma or dissolution. Come on! Its hard to give up the sweet life of authority and respect and wealth, so...dogma it is.

The disturbing thing to me is that science is taking up the mantle of the church (roman) and begun issuing definitive statements about god and the universe, evolution and the proper education of children. I suppose that its natural for science to react to the centuries of their repression by the roman church. Often times in human behavior the abused takes up t he mantle of the abuser, carrying the darkness forward to the future. While science may be wizard at figuring out exactly how things work, they have little to say on the subject of why. I don't thing "There is no why" is a legitimate scientific answer. This, and much of what I was referring to in my previous posts comes from a minority of scientists. Yet this is certainly an act of faith on their parts. Many scientists have very strong faith in many different beliefs. Its the louder, better funded and more political of the bunch that I believe are causing much of the controversy. Evolution is carrying us forward and the only place I can see that we are going is off planet. Perhaps planetary life is only the universes way of incubating intelligence and preparing it for a life in the universe and we are about to experience what billions of other species have. We must never be "certain," of anything, ever.

Study of theology generally leads to intricate philosophical discussions without any conrete outcome. On the other hand, scientists unravelling intricacies of life and cosmos face the shock when answeing why? Therefore, they are compelled out of what they understand to accept a CREATOR, a SPERHUMAN WISDOM that has created all that some of which humans are able to undestand.

...as a follow up to this thread and some of the things that I have mentioned: The skewing of scientific "opinion" is very real but not a condemnation of science or scientists. They have been the victims of "Funding tyrrany" and "Grant Training." Those who (as has been mentioned by others here) attempt to extend the boundries of established science theories (read: dogma) rarely see the light of day as they conflict with the theories of established individuals (check out the recent controversy involving Noam Chomsky and the language theories of a researcher in south america...) or worse they conflict with the scientific agenda of large corporate sponsors. Additionally, personal attitudes, no matter how vigorous the protestations, have a significant effect on individual interpretations regarding the implications of a scientific discovery.

As to the subject of "Metaphysics," the word has been maligned in mainstream science but remains a stubbornly consistant body of knowledge that has begon to gain in legitemacy. Recent findings regarding the possible source of consciousness (Hammeroff et al) and quantum biology are beginning to cast new light on older traditions and the insights that they hold. I believe that the future of physics is to be found in the budding field of Metaphysics. This forum seemed an ideal place for a little "prosteltyzing" for the cause. I have very much enjoyed the dialog and home that it continues.

re: Mohammad Firoz Khan ....Absolutely! I am not religious but that there are "Creators" (plural emphasized) is a forgone conclusion. Life evolves and we must assume that elsewhere life has evolved for far longer and perhaps like the speculations regarding the Wheeler Boundary Condition consciousness has the possibility of evolving to the point where interacting on a far larger scale is realistic to consider, at very least. Whales communicate over hundreds of miles and perceive the ocean in a radically different light that we do. Imagine a consciousness that exists is an exoplanet environment. Can life survive a vacuum? Until a few years ago, we thought that cyanide was fatal then we found bacteria that survive almost anything, freezing, sulphide gas, cyanide and other extreme conditions. What if....? (apologies for lack of spell check, Firefox 13 breaks After The Deadline leaving me helpless....)

Science is a curious bedfellow. We pour billions of dollars into answering a speciocentric question and if we are lucky enough to get an answer, hundreds of new questions arise. For instance, M-theory has finally deduced and is in the process of testing exactly what caused the origin of the universe -- as it turns out, two other universes collided with each other giving ours the necessary influx of energy to form. Huh. This unfortunate news only leads to the question: well where the hell did those other universes come from and how are we going to test that?! There are hundreds of other such examples.

Unfortunately, (and I'm not speaking for anyone else, only being personal here) the whole discipline of science makes one want to learn more about God, so they read Augustine's confessions or that gross apostle Paul or some other such thing, and get so turned off that they struggle not to fall back into their childhood aethism. But then their mind wanders back to the perfect ratio between all fractals and the fact that patterns and formulas are stamped all over the natural world, and they fall back in love with God again. And its this awful cycle of elation and despair, epiphany and existentialism, wonder and disgust. And then they make the mistake of talking to their church-going auntie, or their ridiculously obtuse pastor and it's like when you hit a golf ball and are looking for it in the air but then you realize that you missed it and its just laying there in the grass at your feet (metaphorically of course). So you crawl back to science, bent and broken, and then are filled with wonder again.

We must all venture away from the familiar shore's of consensus or dogma or theory. Sadly, the vast majority find shelter anywhere and learn to live with the "truth" on offer. Like in the movie "My Dinner With Andre" (1981 Louis Malle) the intellectual world (and I consider spirituality to be the other, equal half of the Intellectual coin) has fragmented into "Islands of light in a dark world." Sadly, the means that most people accept one or the other philosophy like warring camps fighting for survival and dominance. The existential crisis that Allison Zank refers to is very real and works both ways, as the beginning of this dialog illustrates. Those that reach for the frontiers of "Religion" end up in a "dark night of the soul," seeking solace in the certainty of "Science." The lack of a larger context into which both become just aspects of a larger reality is the only place to go. Those that bounce from science to religion to ??? are going in circles in a frantic attempt to find a personal fit from the products on offing. A few politely avoid the well protected shores of existing thought and its adherents and find the wilderness, generally out of a sense of self-preservation. I salute all those that reject all existing "proven" truths and venture forth. To be ostracized by both atheist's and Christians is the red badge of true intellectual courage. IMHO anyhow.....

(Edit: "The lack of a larger context into which both become just aspects of a larger reality is the only place to go." should have read: " The lack of a larger context into which both become just aspects of a larger reality is the only real problem and the only place to go for an answer." My apologies...)

Thomas T. wrote:

[Thomas] "The lack of a larger context into which both become just aspects of a larger reality is the only real problem [...] ."

Spot on! Ok, so let's assume there is a "larger context", together with an appropriately enlarged "frame in which to think". To make it interesting, let's also assume some connection, or interest, between that larger context and ours. What steps might be appropriate for evolving the "frame in which we think", to become more consistent with the frame employed within that larger context? In other words, how to present a bigger picture, a wider view, to a sceptical, scientific (and rather backward) world?

Remember the "prime directive", so please, no short cuts!

The problem with the concept of an “enlarged frame in which to think” is that we aren’t there yet but are on the way. Should we practice our swimming or levitation? How do we prepare for the future? This question is fundamentally linked to the question that you propose as our future is indeed the “Undiscovered Country.” The quest for a larger context is and the intellectual framework to adopt is the analog to our perception that we are reaching the end of our evolutionary path, here at least, and have not yet discovered the next environment in which to prepare. Which explains psychologically and emotionally why some of want to take us back to our evolutionary roots, and keep us there (for our own sakes, of course). Alpha Males, and survival of the fittest and such.

The first step from where we are I believe is the establishment of Metaphysics and a legitimate field of study. Not the crystal-soaked, fluffy love science of the populist but Metaphysics as a discipline. For example one of the core axioms of Metaphysics is “As above, so below.” This means, amongst other things, that the patterns of phenomenon that occur on a higher scale, order or magnitude will be replicated on a lower one and the reverse. This comes from the assumption of a common structural framework for all of reality. This would be a dynamic, evolutionary structure that adapts and changes but evolves from its starting point first, such as adding a new geometry to adapt to more complex structures but preserving the logical consistency of the system. I have well developed ideas as to the nature and definition of Metaphysics but life is a group effort so I await the worlds opinion.

I believe that the next step is to establish our relationship to the universe. I find it fascinating that the question of why “WE” are here is never asked, The why part is the problem. While Metaphysics offers a wealth of insight to this question, just no bespoke answers. Every creature on earth serves an evolutionary function that transcends their own existence or that of their species. Bees pollinate flowers and Foxes keep bunnies in check. These are just a few, crude, examples but in just the last decade we have exponentially increase our collective awareness of the complexity of nature and its interdependence. Assuming that all forms of life on earth serve one or more purposes regarding the progress of evolution and the support of life. Its not “survival of the fittest” as much as survival of the most cooperative. This is “Meta-evolution,” (my term) or the evolution of evolution itself. I wrote a piece (in the interest of “no short cuts”) about evolution here: The Evolution Game (http://www.bukisa.com/articles/352525_the-evolution-game-the-rule-breakers). The central tenet of the article (long, 4 parts, sorry) is that we have broken the game. Our evolution is no longer subject to environmental forces. Too cold? Fire. Too hot? Air Conditioning. Food? Don’t even bother to ask. This was true a hundred years ago. We are now creating new species and changing our own DNA to suit our needs. Perhaps Darwin was right but the science has not kept pace with the times, We are no longer subject to the rules and constraints of the evolutionary process. So what does that make us and why did evolution produce us? What is our role, is there one? The answer to this question may be far more important than climate change and asteroid strikes.

The third “stud” in a new framework is a collection of aspects of our existence such as collective versus individual identity and social union. There are those that fear the future not for the disaster that may be on offing, but rather for the possibility of human freedom. They would rather a few rule the many forever, alpha males and survival of the fittest (wealthiest, really?) and all that Jazz. This is the rising existential panic that is setting in. There is also a strong science component to this new framework. Lets start with Garrett Lisi (E8 representational theory), Leo Smolin (evolutionary universe theory), Hameroff et al (quantum consciousness) and the emerging field of quantum biology, Oh and don’t forget Lynn Margulis (Symbiogenesis) How’s that for no short cuts, huh? These are examples of where science is beginning to venture, toe first, into the realms of Metaphysics and the expanded context of which we are speaking. What if Quantum Biology is the first step toward a true “Unified Field Theory?” What if, coupled with Quantum Consciousness and E8, it turns out to be the key to Gravity? (no, I’m not crazy, consider the current challenges to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Wave-Particle duality and others) Perhaps … but no. Keeping on point, We are already beginning to map the larger context and this should provide the beginnings of a framework.

The science is absolutely indispensable to surviving our adventure into this new realm, but spirituality is the only way that WE will survive. “Humanity is the most self-destructive species in existence,” is a statement that few would dare contradict. The fundamental problem is trust or the lack thereof. Scientific rigor itself is based on the assumption that the observations of a human are to be assumed to be flawed at best, and require verification. Much of science is founded on the need to insure that the other mind understands exactly what I am saying (mathematics and the rigors of experimental discipline) and that everything that they say can be falsified or verified separately, they-I must not be trusted. Economics, Politics even basic education is founded on this assumption. This must change, we must forge ourselves into a single fighting team or we are doomed. Quantum Computing may offer better information technology but if we can use atom to represent and manipulate information then why do we assume that the universe is already doing so? Could Quantum Computing be the key to integrating the concept of Intelligent Design into evolutionary theory? Perhaps the rules of information itself would be a good place to start. At this point we could easily invoke Lisi and E8 as a basis for such a system.

This is where Metaphysics might have a role, by analyzing everything in a Gestalt-Gedanken sense we can perhaps eliminate years of wasteful duplication of effort and point science in the right direction. The Observer paradox and the Copenhagen interpretation have been at the forefront of anti-humanism in science for years, not only do we have no active role in nature but they are trying to tell us that we don’t actually exist. Yeah, right so who’s talking to me saying that? Symbiogenesis states that individual members of species can merge into new life forms. Think of it as being the case that long ago the liver and kidney’s merged and became humans. This is very well supported and could indicate that we must seek a higher degree of union to allow us to become a stronger species in advance of becoming a new species. The story from the Christian Bible regarding the rapture in which humanity is seen as a bridegroom to a divine marriage with Jesus, coupled with Pierre Teilhard De Chardin’s “Omega Point and Ascensionist theories all could be interpreted as an attempt to explain our evolutionary future.

Metaphysics is also the process of relating observations and processes from different fields of study that have no business being connected together. Genius, it is said, is finding connections where none exist. That would make union with all infinite IQ. Perhaps a better term would be Meta-science? The name is meaningless, the point is vital. The unification of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics may be irrelevant to the importance of the unification of Biology and Quantum Mechanics. What about the unification of Mathematics and Psychology? This is the beginnings of Metaphysics, the creation of a larger intellectual framework that includes, as functional parts, the unrelated sciences of today.

In reality all science, spirituality and philosophy are products of the human mind. All we really need do is what William “the bard” Shakespeare said “...above all, Know Thy Self” We need only elevate that question to a higher plane and discover who WE are. To assist with that we have the ancient mystery traditions, mysticism and spirituality to help us get started. Rather than the “fluffy, subjective speculations of primitive man” they represent the world of thought and learning from which BOTH (science and religion) have emerged. This is where we should look for the basics of the new framework (paradigm?) for our thinking.

(Oh! and by the way, that was the highly abridged version...tee hee)

To my mind, philosophy of Postmodernism and Post Normal Science provides the "larger context". In this framework science and metaphysics (in fact, religion) both may be discussed. The philosophy of Postmodernism in recent times in spite of vehement denial by a large number of historians and philosopher of science has its seeds in Kuhn's PARADIGM SHIFT where he emphasised role of somewhat superstructures in the progress and shifting viewpoints in science. This idea though not well-developed and argued was hijacked by leftists/Marxists to push their agenda, therefore, it was eliminated from the later edition/revision by the author. This philosophy not only questions concept of LINEARITY embedded in the science but also raise uneasy questions with regard to its (science's) claim of certainty and objectivity. As a result in the WEST in general and to some extent in the EAST, society has grown increasingly sceptical about the wisdom and value of science, as traditionally defined. One reason may be that advances in science have not been matched by advances in the human condition (e.g., Handler, 1979). Another may be that society expects science to reduce uncertainties, when in so many cases it has instead increased uncertainties and science is being measured against its usefulness in improving the human condition. This is modern/normal science pushing past the point that it works. Money which it helps to make is a simple quantitative measure of its success. It is a goal modern/normal science can focus on, but it is an empty goal that leads nowhere. Without a religious sense of connectedness to something beyond one’s individual existence nothing has an enduring meaning. Modern/normal science has smashed all the fairy tales of religion and is too narrow and blind to see past the fairy tales to the underlying truths. It has nothing to guide it but a calculation of net worth. A revival of religious values is essential. This cannot be a regression. We must renew the eternal values with a vision of religious truth that is compatible with the achievements of modern science. And, this cannot be achieved in the philosophical framework of modern/normal science.

Indeed, it is interesting to note that almost never is religious or mystical information taken into consideration in matters of science and yet there are numerous examples of just that and they are probative. Many have pointed out the close resemblance of the I Ching to modern DNA science and the basic structure of DNA, or the legends of the Great Lakes native American people that tell of a time when a great flood occurred. Legends that have now been confirmed by sonar investigation. Metaphysics would result from the validation of this source of information and how it is derived and the implications of the knowledge.

I really have a problem with God, could you help by defining what you mean by using this term?

Well, that would be the 64,000 dollar question. The number of possible interpretations of the term "God" is greater than 10 ^500 (string theory landscape). Being cute aside this has always been the challenge. I could just as easily say that I believe that the sum total of all the consciousness extant in all the universes is God. Or that the pseudo-physical nature of the sub-quantum realm is the mind of God and that reality is his thought, or that this is a simulation and God is the coder (EeeeK!) Most people are still arguing over the "Bearded one" image of God that derives from western culture, Back in the day, "God" was always bearded, and had 24 wives. The problem is not with God or the theory of God, the problem lay with our primitive and limited perception. Now that we have quantum computers we have a quantum God.

A real discussion of the nature of God would be a huge undertaking that could trigger war just over the conference protocols. Deep within, each of us have an image of what lay beyond our limits, no matter how far back they are pushed. What ever that is for you, computer, wave function of cosmic mama is your "God," or nothing if you prefer. (Interesting, God as the quantum vacuum.....) This is my view

A existence that is observable and quantifiable may be defined in scientific terms or in a layman parlance. God is human vocabulary since we know civilisation was not there. Different peole in different languages gave that super natural being some name. However, the most common concept is that of Deity (Ma'abood in Arabic), an exixtence to whom one has to submit. None has seen God, but our consciousness looking into cosmos or into quantum vacume necessaily finds out that all that exists and have so many laws of itself (remeber duality/dichotomy of macro and microphysics whie both works in their spheres of applications) one cannot help that God leaves sighns/evidence or proof of Its existence everywhere and at every scale. If Higgs Boson is really found in any way or evidence of of its presence and its postulated function is proved beyon uncertainty which completes the standard model of particle research, does it really amounts to uncovering of process of formation of universe? Because. it is all about a few seconds after Big Bang, then question arises what was prior to bing bang? Does big bang theory conclusively proves it or standard model for that matter. Beyond that is mystry of granular space, each grain of which is one-trillionth of an atom that is much smaller than weightless subatomic particles. Does standard model or big bang will solve the problem of origion of antimatter and dark matter and dark energy. Can standard model or science of evolution may explain conclusively origin of life and consciousness. All the life-forming elements are there but like a mixture of hydrogen and oxigen in right proporion which needs a flame or spark to start reaction to form water, can life be produced in that manner, why origin of life is assigned to some chance event without explaining what that chance event was. No scientist could produce life in lab except one who produced amino-acid but after being challenged admitted it was not created in Earth like conditions. Man encounters riddles and mystries at each level of his progress and they grow in exponential manner with each step forward. one has to remember that human mind has its limits and science is product of human mind and therefore its reach is also limited. Therefore, instead of affiming existence of a super natural being that created all that we are able to understand, instead of submitting oneself to God, the Creator, each step of progress instead of humbling us makes us more and more arrogant and that is human tragedy.

As a Muslim, my Allah (God) is ONE who has neither parents nor children nor partners nor advisors. Allah is SINGULAR or UNIQUE nothing is like Allah, we cannot understand Allah's existence by some metaphor, symbol, icon or in terms of some equation. Allah is NOOR (light) and source of all types of noors (lights).We can believe in Allah only through his creation and mystries unfolding before us. And, all these stand evidence/witness to the Creator's (Allah's) might, wisdom and granduer. All praises and glory to Allah or to the existence who has all aforementioned qualities irrespective of the fact with whatever beautiful name one calls the DEITY

Mohammad Firoz Khan wrote:

[MFK]: "Allah is NOOR (light) and source of all types of noors (lights)."

Thank you Mohammad, that is a splendid conceptual package! In a recent video essay on all this, I picture 4 kinds of light, each of which serves as "currency" in its domain. Of these, the most interesting (for persons) is the light that illuminates personality, something we know as "love".

And Thomas, regarding quantum vacuums, some of us have come to refer to such utilities as aspects of the Unqualified Absolute. Of course, the >Author of Reality< is more than the Unqualified, and much more than mere utilities. :-D

NN

For Nigel:

An Urdu poet says:

“Ta’at ke liay kuchch kum na they karrobian;

Insan ko paida kiya dard-e- dil ke vaste.”

[Free translation: There was no dearth of angels to worship;

Human beings are created for an aching heart (love) i.e., to love fellow beings and their Creator].

We Muslims in the holy Qur’an are told that the purpose of creation of genies and humans is to worship their Lord/Creator/Sustainer and we take and practise it verbatim. However, it does not take a sufi to tell us that ikhlaas (purity of heart and mind) in worshipping Allah does not come and worshiper does not experience immense pleasure and inner satisfaction unless one does not do it out of love of Allah. Otherwise, it is pure ritual.

Love is one of the most sought after properties (character) of Allah for his mercy and forgiveness. Allah loves Its creatures (be humans or non-humans) more than seventy-times (remember seventy is a very, very much large number in Arabic usage) of the mother of a creature. If Allah loves one, i.e., is pleased with one, his/her salvation is definite.

Thanks Mohammad for attempting a translation! Discussion of light and love would take us on a wonderful detour. Before heading back, here's something I wonder about:

Light -- of the electromagnetic kind -- is bound into the moving membrane of the moment. While this makes it easy for us to study, it also implies that this kind of light plays only on a material, time-bound, finite stage. So what lights up things not made of matter? What lights up non-finite things?

Getting back to the current discussion, Allison began by wondering:

[AZ]: "Has anybody else noticed that studying theology seems to diminish their faith but that studying science enhances it?"

I think that may be saying something about the theology you study, and about what you have called faith. What certainly diminished for me was my attachment to a set of beliefs.

Allison added this observation:

[AZ]: "The more I learn about religion the less clear my convictions become, but the more I learn about the intricacies of nature the more mysterious and mighty God becomes."

Beautifully said! For me, the more I learned about "systems of faith", the easier it was for me to detach from the set of beliefs with which I grew up, and to respond to intuitions of truth. And so began my hunt for a larger frame in which to think.

Allison, think how systems of faith evolve. From the experience of a teacher, or the words of a prophet, followers try (more or less sincerely) to set up some framework of beliefs to capture what they responded to in that teacher or prophet. The problem all such systems face is that the original truth or revelation (if it is to be shareable) had to be pitched into the contemporary frame. In this sense, ancient "religions" are like snapshots of what a people would, or could, accept. Current systems of faith likewise indicate not so much the truth from which they sprang, but what cultural inertia allows.

On the other hand, science (at least the true scientific method) is our attempt to sidestep erroneous assumptions; actually to look. Surely religionists should attempt no less -- to experience the truth which gave rise to their system of faith; not merely to settle for teachings or beliefs about it.

While encouraging a narrow set of beliefs may be a time-honoured technique for raising children, it is a deep shame when adults get stuck in such a mode. From the Urantia Book's paper 115,

"Man must think in a mortal universe frame, but that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place." (115:1.2)

Another side of that coin is:

"Volition, the act of choosing, must function within the universe frame which has actualized in response to higher and prior choosing." (118:6.7)

This brings us to interesting questions about the personality who actually discovers, recognizes, interprets and does the choosing.

Nigel

In my experience, the discipline of Biblical studies is also difficult. Some of my colleagues are atheists, agnostics and some are hostile to Christian beliefs and yet they are wonderful scholars, great people and I enjoy their input into my research. My brother is a scientists and is a prof. at a university and he has less difficulties with combining science and the Bible.

Nigel, we do not have the scientific means of studying what light is in any area except our physical plane. Yet we have numerous accounts from people who claim to have had spiritual experiences wo all recount the wondrous light of the spirit realms, and how it is far more intense, yet far less troubling to the eyes. However, most, if not all of these experiencers have also reported a realm of darkness that is separate from the realm of light. Static fields, which are present throughout our physical realms are as close to total darkness as anything can come (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle assures that there must be some light, even if so rare that it cannot be detected). However, how would light appear if there were no static fields to interfere with it?

William, can you please post links to credible accounts? Preferably from an academic source? I always mean to look stuff like that up but never seem to get around to it. Thanks

I have heard a pattern described which fits my personal experience. You start with a naive, pre-critical understanding of religion. Then you learn more and realize the holes in your belief set. From here you have, a few choices: (1) forget what you have learned and regress to where you started, (2) become cynical and lose your faith, (3) stick with it long enough to integrate what you have learned into your faith. Paul Ricoeur called this the second, or "knowing" naivete. A couple of links...

http://www.exploring-spiritual-development.com/Paul-Ricoeur.html

http://mysite.verizon.net/thelogos/ricoeur.pdf

Seminaries tend to be better at breaking down what you came with than they are at rebuilding something stronger. To coin a cliche, "Keep the faith!"

why didn't muhammad guide people to electricity? or to the scientists like proclus, euclid, pythagoras, Eratosthenes. Is pakistan more advance than Japan because of pak's belief in Allah? Does islam encourage scientific inquiry? If yes, which of the first muslims studied mathematics - on quranic impuls - which became excellent surgeons? Which of the companions of Muhammad became excellent astronomers, invented the I-phone? Islam with all its 'revelation', the practice of muhammad, the mosques, the one-ness of Allah, the friends of Allah has not even come up with the telephone. Does science need to be benighted by religion?

Dear Afzal Hasan,

Recall how that particular prophet was sent to a group of self-destructive tribes on the verge of self-destruction. That particular messenger (and message) was deeply effective in restoring local belief in a reliable, powerful creator. Surely this is not a bad first step on the road to rehabilitation? The only real problem in this picture is that some of those believers have still not yet dared to take the second, more challenging, step.

Nigel

my dear chap,

'self destructiv tribes' - 'rehabilitation' ?! 'reliable, powerful creator' ? the verge of self destructivness is a bit of a muslim myth. They could produce art, and businesswomen. Sure there were social problems given that day, age, location.., as in all societies. There is some irony that you speak of 'self-destuctiveness' but says muhammad: I'd love to fight in the way of God, be killed and resurrected again and then fight till I'm killed...etc etc. or Muhammad says 'none of you is a true believer unless you long for martyrdom'..though you die in your bed'. call that the right road?

Dear Afzal,

> call that the right road?

No, it was (and remains) a very poor road. But notice the similarity (w.r.t. quantity of blood shed) to the road stepped by their Hebrew cousins 1,500 years earlier. But a curious thing: why were those ancient Hebrews able to evolve their concept of God, while so many followers of Islam, even today, seem afraid to look beyond the beliefs they grow up with?

Nigel

Yes, religion has been used as an excuse to murder millions and suppress even more. However, science gave us global extermination, potential genetic holocaust and the real possibility of the complete technological domination of the minds of billions, "Death to Free Thought!" I'm certain that the vast majority of scientists are decent people and believe in humanity, just as certain that the vast majority of mystics, priests, imams and religious devotee's are. Electricity is not evil, the torturer using it is. There is beauty for all in the Koran as well as the elegance of string theory and the voices of a choir.

(P.S; As to the concept of Allah, one should spend time reading Sufi literature, the Koran and consider that Islam is one of the few religions that actually assumes that the concept of God is beyond us and at the same time, intimately intertwined with our lives, rather than a distant, amorphous ruler. Each has his or her own concept, ultimately)

Just a note. much of the real science that we have today comes FROM the Islamic states. Europe was in the dark until trade and social contact with Islam led to the education of Europe as to Greek theories, mathematics, engineering and many others, including astronomy (not astrology). Sorry, I had a few cents to put somewhere...and I really like the conversation here.

Allison, depending on what you consider to be credible accounts, the IANDS (International Association for Near Death Studies) maintains a sizable collection of NDE accounts, as does the NDERF (Near Death Experience Research Foundation), which I know to be www.nderf.org. Raymond Moody's books contain multiple accounts, Penny Sartori did a PhD thesis on NDE's, and has a book out based in large part on her thesis, Pym von Lommel, MD is another well known and respected researcher, and finally I can recommend Kenneth Ring. If you want more sources I would have to look in my library, but these are the sources I can pull off the top of my head.

Well, having another 2 (or 3 cents to spare) I myself am an NDE'r. Just over two years ago. While I am unwilling to discuss the details, I was given the impression that both sides of the issue are correct, its just that neither is right. Oh and I also met Dannion Brinkley and spoke with Dr. Moody a long time ago. I suppose that the general (and misinterpreted Wheeler-Dewitt theories) are what I believe happened. Its sort of like the "Materialist" version in which the experience is internal and memory related except that in the moments it takes for an individual to expire are amplified temporally into, well, maybe eternity (whatever that is).

As a science grad and theology grad, Allison, I'd recommend you read the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, which includes a claim that people know of a creator and are accountable to him for it. The whole letter is worth reading, and should only take half and hour if your read it quickly, which you shouldn't. Whatever you do, *don't* read any theologians commenting on the book, work out what you make of it yourself. Paul was one of the best theologians in history, why go to his students unless you can't understand him yourself, and he's more clear than most of his students imo.

If you want academic writers addressing the topic of God philosophically, I'd recommend Alvin Plantinga, though you will need a crash course in epistemology and metaphysics to enjoy his clarity and dry wit fully.

http://philosophy.nd.edu/people/all/profiles/plantinga-alvin/

Hi Alastair,

One thing about Paul, while he did help to foster a system of faith about Jesus, this system of faith was not quite the same experience of God that Jesus himself was trying to foster in those he taught. Which raises a question: before Jesus was killed, what was the good news that Jesus himself was revealing? Paul, and those who followed, led many to believe that "the good news" was about Jesus atoning for sins, etc. According to paper 141 of the Urantia book, Jesus himself revealed different good news:

(1590.5) 141:4.2 In answer to Thomas's question, "Who is this God of the kingdom?" Jesus replied: "God is your Father, and religion--my gospel--is nothing more nor less than the believing recognition of the truth that you are his son. And I am here among you in the flesh to make clear both of these ideas in my life and teachings."

To me, this "good news" seems more wonderful, more simple, and more believable than beliefs about Jesus having to be killed to satisfy some heavenly legal requirement. What do you think?

Nigel

Thanks for your thoughts Nigel. Your quote certainly addresses Alison's question. I hadn't heard of the Urantia Book Fellowship until you quoted them here. I'm not sure whether the reference you provide claims historicity, or is intended with sincerity to suggest spiritual truth without being shackled by history.

Responding to the quote, it seems too conveniently simple to me. There are many words but it boils down to "Jesus said you are related to God as son to father, AND nothing else is worth saying." Paul said the first in Athens (Acts 17:28), citing Epimenides, "for we too are his offspring (genus, τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν). Jesus did say something different (John 10:34), citing Psalm 82:6, "I say, 'gods are you, and sons of the Highest of All" (א‍ני־אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם׃).

So, from the canonical scriptures of Christianity, I can find the first point made by Paul, Jesus and the Psalms, and even Epimenides is accepted as having grasped the point. However, the second point excludes the relevance of any other theological assertion, including many things attributed to Jesus in the canonical scriptures. It also excludes anything else attributed to Jesus in the writings of the Urantia Book Fellowship, which seems rather self-defeating.

So, subject to further enlightenment, I'm inclined to stick to the canonical scriptures no more and no less. Though I'm always willing to subject my personal opinion to challenges from outside, the Urantia Book Fellowship quote you offer confirms rather than disconfirms my current Sola Scriptura position.

How would you like to respond to my reply, fellow pilgrim?

http://biblos.com/acts/17-28.htm

Dear Alastair - thanks for your thoughts too! Regarding historicity vs. unshackled spiritual truth, I'd say both. Regarding that "Fellowship" you mentioned, I'd suggest bypassing user-groups and commentaries.

Allison began with the proposition that the closer we examine the surfaces that wrap our systems of faith, the less robust they seem, while the more we discover about the techniques that cause nature to be so... natural, the more wonderful and numinous the whole plot becomes. For me, this Urantia book simply unfolds a bigger canvas, one that accommodates -- without effort -- love, faith and reason in a well-defined quantized material context against a background of transcendental design and absonite architecture. As I implied earlier, a bigger frame in which to think. One where reason embraces faith as a necessary technique for nudging us beyond acknowledged limitations.

Regarding that Urantia book itself, maybe worth a 17-page test drive?

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/foreword

Regarding the relevance of theological assertions, that's a great question.

with thanks, fellow pilgrim :-)

Nigel

Hi Nigel,

I didn't quite get through 17 paragraphs I'm afraid. At paragraph 5 I got this:

"Your world, Urantia, is one of many similar inhabited planets which comprise the local universe of Nebadon. This universe, together with similar creations, makes up the superuniverse of Orvonton, from whose capital, Uversa, our commission hails. Orvonton is one of the seven evolutionary superuniverses of time and space which circle the never-beginning, never-ending creation of divine perfection — the central universe of Havona. At the heart of this eternal and central universe is the stationary Isle of Paradise, the geographic center of infinity and the dwelling place of the eternal God."

It doesn't take particularly close examination of the surface of this to form the conclusion that reading further is certainly likely to prove it to be less than robust and so unsuited to my system of faith which is based on testing assertions for truth, as in science and as in theology of the tradition to which I belong. Truth compels my sort of faith, though I acknowledge the English language also permits the word faith to refer to wishful thinking, including that which denies reality or creates its own imaginary worlds. Such wishful thinking must have a certain kind of value, indeed I wish for a holiday and can make it happen. However, that's a different kind of value to truth-value, and a different kind of faith to that which I place in internal combustion engines and the substitutionary atoning work of Jesus. Those I expect to work for me, or be unworthy of my faith. If I have reason to believe the engine doesn't work, I don't buy the car. If I have no reason to believe Jesus' death removes my sins, I look for another saviour. But in the case of Jesus, I've not been presented with any reason to doubt the efficacy of his work, and I've been presented with many reasons to trust it.

I actually think Allison's observation is directed the opposite way to what you suggest: i.e. it is in the certainties of observable and repeatable science we see the hand of God without question, whereas in metaphysical speculation and disputes about what is moral we encounter quagmires for the mind and for the soul. Murder is as clearly wrong as the glorious providential goodness of God is obvious in all the grandure of the observable physical universe. It is to the God whose hands made ours and all that comes into them that we understand ourselves to also be accountable for the lack of alignment of our hearts with his. Or at least so Jesus is documented as saying things are, by the reports those who knew him left behind.

AL

Dear Alistair - thanks for trying! Many a stout soul gets stuck at about the same place. I'm reminded of the dilemma faced by the apostles; since it was common knowledge that "no good thing could come from Nazareth", how outlandish was it to choose to follow him?

Nigel

Thanks for appreciating my pathetic attempt, Nigel!

The cool thing about "nothing good coming from Nazareth" is it is actually a reference to the authority of the Old Testament. Nazareth is not mentioned, though Bethlehem is. It goes back to Allison's question again: Nathaniel wasn't going to listen to any theologians outside the authorised literature he'd studied. The Messiah would come from Bethlehem or he was no Messiah.

What's even more remarkable is devout monotheists accepting Jesus' claim to forgive sins. Crucifixion for blasphemy fits much better with that claim, not discipleship. What was it about Jesus that meant his disciples thought he *was* better than their authorised literature.

The right thing is not listening to everyone, it is listening to the right ones. The reason science doesn't distract from God is because it doesn't try to make up any stories about him. Theologians on the other hand do nothing but tell stories about God. But like science, its the repeatable stuff that can be trusted.

Cheers

Nigel, it seems to me that another problem with theology is the mistaken belief that since those who preceded me were closer to the writing of the Bible that they must have clearer insights into it than I have. I can thus not disagree with them to any great extent.

Instead I hold tothe thought that those who preceded me in theology were human just as I am, and that they wrote according to their worldview. Now in order for me to try to deliver the same message that I think they tried to convey, I must express this message in the words of our current worldview.

Now to do this might well look as if I am contradicting my predecessor, but that is not my intention. Rather I am seeking to present the message that they sought to present using words and thoughts tha I think they would be using if they were alive today. These predecessors go all the way back to the original writers of Genesis. I do not seek to contradict scripture as such, but if I can take the understandings gained from our modern scientific method and the language of today, and find the same message in the ancient writings, then for today's world I find the modern language to be far better to use.

As an example, I find that the existential crisis of humanity can be adequately expressed using the language and knowledge of modern science. Further, I can post the two options available, the path of life and the path of death in this same manner. It is only at point that I find I need to bring in the scriptures, and then only to point out that they tell us that Jesus rose from the dead, thus affirming which path is the path of life.

That's a very nice answer to all parts of the question from the Christian tradition imo William, and thank you for it. I think, however, *within* Christianity, important different nuances arise regarding constraints on your proposed epistemology, the existence and closure of a canon of scripture for a start.

Your main point is that truth is invariant under translation, i.e. the truth value of propositions (de re) does not change under translation between languages (de dicto): "Socrates war ein Mann" and "Sokrates telah seorang pria" both affirm the same proposition as "Socrates was a man". I would suggest, however, that metaphysics and physics are not different languages, but different universes of reference. One should do unto others as you would be dealt with yourself is the same idea in any language, but it cannot be proven in a laboratory. It is metaphysical, not physical. Its truth is intuited or whatever. On the other hand that water is two parts hydrogen to every oxygen, tells us absolutely nothing about whether you can make horses drink it should you lead them to it.

I particularly like your focus on the resurrection, because that is one of several claims in the Bible that blur the physics-metaphysics interface: How can God become man? On the one hand, finding the bones of Jesus would disprove the truth claims of the Bible as history, on the other hand, how could we possibly know if sin is truly forgiven by digging here, or observing a chemical reaction there?

Of course, Allison's question was not so much about Muslim, Christian or other beliefs, but more to do with what we can know, or hope to know, or even upon what ought we to spend faith. Truly a question for our time! I did my bit wrestling with the ontological and epistemological over here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls9fkACcrKk [Universe Frames]

Again, this is in the context of those Urantia papers, but part 1 is fairly general, and easy on the eye. Regarding our tendency to spin tales about our gods, paper 115 in the above puts it like this:

"If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree." (115:1.1)

This sort of "sets the tone" for the other 2,000 pages :-)

Nigel

Allison, the title of your comment is intriguing. Perhaps it's because so much theology contradicts much of what Jesus Christ taught. For example, He taught that Adam and Eve were created, not after billions of years, but at the beginning of creation, as at http://YoungEarth.org

-Bob Enyart

Real Science Friday

Philo, a near contemporary of Jesus, didn't hold the trivial view Bob attributes to him. It was perfectly standard in the first century to see Genesis as theological allegory, which it obviously is: as Augustine said, even one second would be longer than it would take God to make the universe, so we must be dealing with allegory. That would have been understood by the first readers just as well.

It's only in modern times that we get unscientific readings of Genesis. Darwin was a classic example of an unscientific Bible reader. He was much better at biology than theology, despite actually being qualified in theology rather than biology. But Darwin saw Genesis as history, which it can't be, because it gives a timetable that is too long, not too short. Darwin's problem was being a Christian fundamentalist, and being unscientifically literalistic about reading the text. God invented evolution before he ignited the big band, and Genesis even allows for the right kind of feel, by saying man was formed from dust, which is precisely what evolution demonstrates in detail.

I believe Alister McGrath has written something regarding Augustine's "origin of species". Just because there are some Christians who loudly proclaim their misunderstanding of Genesis as though they are the only ones who could know, doesn't mean atheists have any excuse to believe such twaddle and reject Genesis.

I get tired of hearing from Christian fundamentalists like Dawkins, who rejects a palpably false reading of Genesis. He should stop leaving his brain at the door and just accepting what Christian fundamentalists tell him, and start reading the Bible and thinking about it logically and scientifically. There's something fishy about atheists who can tell you so much about the God they don't believe in, they're not really atheists, they are fundamentalists rejecting their own fundamentalism, quite a different species altogether.

I was raised Catholic, I then moved to an Indian Reservation in New Mexico. These two cultures clashed in my head. Having had the training of a Parochial School, I quickly found the concepts not to fit what I was experiencing in the world. I started to question first the teachings and then the concept. I now find no solace in any of this as it no longer makes any sense to me at all. I have now been reading about religion in all forms and science in all aspects for over fifty years. I find the world of religion as organized and experienced by listening to the Pope and other Religious leaders empty of meaningful content. So this means I am an Atheist. I have some background at the University level of Philosophy, Religion, Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics and find wonder in these. So in this mind I have where these ideas, concepts, and thinking retreat, what would a God be? I do sometimes wonder about this but then realize a question. If God is to be all that people say he is, then how would some totally alien creature that has the ability to research the content of our air waves think of our God. I am almost certain that this would be a foreign concept for him, this alien having some other form of understanding and living in his world. God is an Earth centric belief. I realize I could not have any knowledge of any alien being or culture, but I am sure that the only way a concept that we hold would have no bearing on the aliens. Having a different way of sensing the Universe they would have totally different concepts. I welcome any comment as I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right or wrong, I would just like to put this out there so I can learn what others think. Thank you in advance.

Hi Dale!

I like your thought experiment. Never heard it before. Want to copy it some time. But first I need to think it through a bit further. For the thought experiment to make sense, the alien needs to be able to decode our language(s). That's not too hard to imagine, since we decoded ancient Egyptian without having native speakers available to teach us. In fact, language learning demonstrates how minds can learn from different minds. Language is not perfectly precise, but precise enough. But it does presume a sender encodes something that a receiver can decode to some extent. That extent will involve certain cognitive constructs, including perhaps the recognition of self and other, intentionality, causation, logic? truth? justice? Would aliens have democracy? Or would that not make sense to them? Does democracy exist? Is it meaningful if aliens couldn't understand it? Is democracy earth-centric? What about theocracy? Would aliens steal from one another, or is that earth-centric (CS Lewis' enjoyable and philosophical sci fi trilogy has that kind of universe). Care to flesh out the thought experiment a bit further, Dale?

Dale,

This reminds me of the old question: if God is all powerful, can he create an object that is so heavy that even He couldn't lift it? Then the answer is: yes, but then He can just make himself bigger afterwards. hahaha.

I guess it would depend on your concept of a Higher Power. In your alien example, the aliens are of a higher dimension than the Higher Power in question, but if God were to be infinitely dimensional then God would be relevant again.

How delightful.

Dale, I fully understand your dilemma in discovering two totally different approaches and understanding coming from two totally different cultures. I was likewise trained in Christianity, and likewise came into exposure to Native American beliefs. However, I came to understand that we were talking about the same entity, just from different viewpoints. I liken my experience to two blind men discussing what the elephant is like, and agreeing that they have studied the same animal even if their studies yield far different answers. Combining our insights probably gives a new distorted image of what God is, but at least we have a few more pieces by listening to each other, even if we cannot fit them together properly.

Now if some aliens were to add their understandings of God/the creator/the ulitmate source of being into the mix we could probably mess up the composite picture of Him even more.

I thinking about the alien I wanted to examine the possibility that our World could be understood by someone who held completely different ideas and ways of existing within their world or space ship or what ever. I am sure anything that has the technology to do so is listening to us to determine our worth of contact. They could access our radio waves and t.v.since about 1930 or so. I am sure they have a far better view of us than we do since our point of view is extremely bias. From my philosophy classes and their relation the concept of God I have come to understand that everyone has a different concept of God. So one can ask, "You define what God is to you and then I will tell you if I believe in him." This is of course a tell, there is no way to successfully answer this question to get a positive response from me for the simple reason that God is only definable through people. There is no other way to determine what a God would be. Now this is an exercise for thought and I am not trying to get on anyone's case of say something just to offend. I have always though this discussion would perhaps be enlightening, show my fallacy of thought or logic. I once read that when Moses went to the top of Mt. Sinai God was "I am that I am" which was translated incorrectly and should have read "I am amming that I am amming." Which kind of makes no sense until you realize that at the time the language did not have a past tense. God is in my understanding "That which supports all that there is, that which keeps everything going in the way it goes." This makes God a process, the process that underlies all that there is."

Biblical Hebrew has two conjugations: perfect (past) and imperfect (future). The first has a mandatory subject pronoun suffix, the other a mandatory subject pronoun affix. There is no *present* in BH. The verb "to be" in Hebrew, like in many languages, can mean, or more properly means "to become" (or to have become in the perfect). I have read many opinions on the sense of formula REVEALED to Moses. "I will be who I will be" is not a bad option. The Hebrew is much more dynamic than simple English forms. Your "amming" is rather nice, imo. But here's a question for you, Dale. Suppose what Moses said about God was the Paris kilogram or gold standard measure of earth-centric knowledge of God, would that help? Suppose further that Moses was not just constructing an arbitrary standard tailored to suit his own prejudices, but actually was granted by God a genuine and unique insight into The Amming One's objectively real nature (that he "ams" among other things). How about this. The difference between the epistemology of physical world in science and the epistemology of the metaphysical world in theology is this: in science we actively OBSERVE what is physically present, in theology we passively receive what has been REVEALED to intuition. The wrongness of murder is not observed, it is intuited.

Yes. It is right. When I was I was behind to find God. I read so many religious books and different religions of the world. In College when no student interested in a talk of Religions in a Ashram, I attended it. Now I am an Atheist. Those who were not interested in Religion are strong believers! Slowly I got interested in Science eventhough my subject of study was Commerce. Science enhanced my knowledge. I thank Science not God!! Do you?

Yes. It is right. When I was I was behind to find God. I read so many religious books and different religions of the world. In College when no student interested in a talk of Religions in a Ashram, I attended it. Now I am an Atheist. Those who were not interested in Religion are strong believers! Slowly I got interested in Science eventhough my subject of study was Commerce. Science enhanced my knowledge. I thank Science not God!! Do you?

I've had the opposite experience. Of course I kept the study of theology within the context of a Judeo-Christian focus. All theological studies are correct or for that matter true. If your studies are kept within the context of the Hebrew and Christian literature, it will only add clarity to you faith. But if your studies are "the theologies of world religions" then you will have a hard time determining what's correct (truth) or not, for all theologies are not equally valid or do they point to the true God.

I find that the study of theology proper, which is literally the study of God, increases faith but in a different way than does the study of science. Anselm famously stated that God was "that being than which no greater can be conceived." Reading Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards I find my faith is strengthened and increased. I cannot conceive of a being greater than the God these men write about (most especially Aquinas and Calvin). However reading science also has this same effect, but in a different way. It is like the difference between reading the biography of a great artist and then looking at his/her artwork. Both help you to appreciate the artist. I would not know the artist so much as I'd know the artist's imagination were it not for the biography. I would not know the grandeur of the artist's thought were it not for the artwork.

At a point in time in the study of God there may be the feeling of familiarity which often breeds contempt. while to an extent to when scientists get to a point in their research where all available means have been exploited they sometimes recourse to God. that is why both faith and reason go hand in hand because one begins where the other ends.

Much of an answer to this question depends on what one means by "studying Theology". One can study Theology through a philosophical perspective (call that Natural Theology or Philosophical Theology) or one can study Theology from a parochial perspective. In the former the methodology of science and Philosophy, History, Psychology, Sociology etc and etc have a bearing. In the latter only the dogmas of a particular sect are relevant. It would seem that there is little difference in the former which might make one less inclined to faith, but in the latter the faith is assumed and a natural human skepticism arises in the person doing the studying. The problem is that there is a natural tendency to think of God or presume that God is the "Old man in the sky". This presupposition often gets in the way of recognizing the deity in creation. While on the other hand the study of Science is supposed to be presuppositionless, and therefore the nature of the Deity is not presupposed as anything other than "the deity" or any thing at all. Once one has achieved a level of sophistication in Science however, one is confronted with how vast the Universe is, and how amazingly small one is compared to that vastness. Likewise once one is able to see the vast multitude of beings visible through a powerful microscope one understands precisely how vast the number of organisms and non-organic entities are both large and small in the universe. This ought to dispose one to a kind of Einstein like faith.

In a recent conversation I asked my friend if she could tell me what kind of thing is both transcendent (other than a thing), and yet also immanent (in everything that is). She replied Gravity, it's a force we cannot easily define, yet it permeates the universe and is not an entity in the universe. God perhaps is a force. So I left our conversation with a Star Wars mantra "may the force be with you".

The God that Philosophers and Scientists discover in their respective inquiries is not the God of miracles and magic, but the God of creation, and providence, perhaps since we cannot exactly put our finger or minds on God exactly the God of the Scientist and Philosopher is the God who is a mystery worthy of our inner vision of the Universe and our place in it..

.

Question for you Vernon: Is the force personal or impersonal?

Bill, the proper answer is both. I know it seems strange to think so, but that is what Theism implies, namely that The Force is transcendent, i.e. impersonal from one perspective, from another it is immanent and personal. Since I am a Personalist and ally myself with Bowne, Howison, Brightman, and even MLK Jr., I ally myself with the Personalist Discussion Group. Personalism is the view that no matter what the subject everything (all knowledge) points to a human person, if it does not depend on the human person, it reflects a personality. God as 3 persons in one substance is nothing more than the Force is a creative, human, and spiritual (community exemplified) It's a form of Idealism, and not far from Humanism and perhaps the last remnant of American Idealist tradition. In the conflict between the Absolute Idealism of Royce and the Personalism of Bowne, I would side with Bowne, but the Hegelians and Royce have much to say. To say that the Force is only impersonal is to ally oneself with Deism. To claim that the Force is only personal is to ally oneself with Panentheism (not the same as Pantheism).

On Aug 1 2013 Vernon Kooy wrote: "Bill, the proper answer is both. I know it seems strange to think so, but that is what Theism implies, namely that The Force is transcendent, i.e. impersonal from one perspective, from another it is immanent and personal. [...]"

For me, as a scientist, discovering that the "ancestor of universes" is also "father of personalities" helped to clarify this sort of question. Of course this discovery took a little time, and sure, as I walked this walk, it was embarrassing to discover just how small and inadequate my previous set of assumptions really were, and ok, there was a leap of faith involved, but as many a scientist has found, suspending disbelief and following a guiding principle is sometimes the way forward.

Thanks for the contributions!

It is true, but this is a recent problem, until Baroque era theology was strictly related to science studies and the contemplation of nature is a strong push toward faith.

In any case faith and theology are two different things, only few saints (I think of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, St. Augustine and few others) were able to keep strict links between the two, basically 'I piccoli' know much more about the Heavens Kingdom than educated people..and this is certainly true, I learn much more in a night pilgrimage to the Holy Virgin Sanctuary of 'Divino Amore' than reading thousands of theology books....

Dear researchers and believers , my experience: I had attended few theology classes in 2004. I was really confused. There was huge fluctuation in my faith. But after getting experience with Holy spirit , my faith level was high. i may loose my faith by studying materiel papers , but once i have experience with Holy spirit i can not loose my faith. I remember .........." No one can come to me (know Jesus) unless the Father in heaven permits them. Its my personal experience. Many christian children know about Jesus. But they do not know Him.

Vernon,

Your particular brand of panentheism, as you describe it, seems by definition a contradiction to my thought processes. I can understand a God Who is both transcendent and immanent, indeed, that is exactly how YHWH of the Hebrew Tanakh presents. What I cannot grasp is the notion of this God being impersonal. For me, to the degree that you call this "God" impersonal. to that degree, you are leaving the realms of penentheism and entering those of pantheism. I am intrigued by your description, and am not in any way being oppositional when I say this.

For a being that is the ground of all being, and a personality which is the ground of personality to be declared to be impersonal in some sense, means (to me) that we are no longer speaking of a being at all (in my recognized and understood categories). We are now speaking (from my point of view) of a hybrid entity which is some sort of a composite. This seems more like one of the deities of the Ancient Near Eastern pantheon of gods than it does of any current widespread understanding of what a god might look like. Are you trying to combine the notion of Paramatma of Vedantic Hinduism with the Hebrew/ Christian/Muslim notion of the one God? Or, must one entertain some particular understanding of the mystical in order to be able to understand what you mean?

When you raise the issue of idealism, I am very conversant with German Idealism, somewhat familiar with British idealism (especially Bradley through the lens which was popular at Oxford in the 19th Century), and ignorant of American idealism. For me this discussion would not belong under the category of idealism at all, except by way of analogy or metaphor. When you mention Humanism, whether you refer to Renaissance Humanism (I am a big fan) or the Humanism of the Humanist Manifestos I & II (I am not a fan - although I love the individual work of many of those humanists), I again find no assistance as regards understanding your meaning. As regards personalism, I am quite comfortable describing myself as a personalist of the variety put forth by Jacques Maritain (and as his sort of a Thomist as well, for that matter), but once again that perspective gives me no illumination of your categories. I have been a student of MLK, Jr. for most of my adult life (and I'm getting kind of old), but I don't find any help there either.

In trying to understand the distinction you have mentioned I looked up Bowne, Howison, and Brightman, and was brought to numerous Personalism websites. These all had a recurring theme:

"...personalists defend the primacy and importance of persons against any attempt to reduce persons either to the Impersonalism of an infrastructure, such as scientific naturalism, or suprastructure, such as metaphysical absolutism. Personalists focus on the concerns of persons living in a personal world. Between the Scylla and Charybdis of either type of Impersonalism, personalists trace the origin of the concept of person and the development of metaphysical personalism from the ancient world to its flowering in Europe and America."

Again, this seems to square more with my current perspectives on the matter. I guess I need for you to "unpack" your meaning in order to understand what you intend. As I see things now it seems as though you have a category confusion. I trust that such is not the case, and that I am just not "getting it". Please shed a bit more light on your meaning.

William,

Were I to embrace your definition of religion ("Religion is about re-enforcing existing belief and science about questioning existing beliefs"), then I too, with Allison, would find that the study of religion diminished my faith whilst the study of science increased it. That being said, I must immediately admit that a lot of religiosity functions just as you have described, and therefore devolves into a dead creedalism. However, I find that religious faith is a "grand adventure", and that it is not so much a reinforcement of existing belief as an exploration of what claims to be a revelation or self-disclosure from the Maker of the Universe. My own convictions lie in the direction of Christianity, but my study of other faiths has also been an exciting and fascinating adventure, and a chance to see things from the perspectives of large numbers of people in other parts of the world.

As regards the central dogmas of Christianity, Dorothy Sayers (the first to bear the mantle "The Queen of Crime") put it this way in her little monograph entitled The Greatest Drama Ever Staged:

"Any stigma," said a witty tongue, "will do to beat a dogma"; and the flails of ridicule have been brandished with such energy of late on the threshing-floor of controversy that the true seed of the Word has become well-nigh lost amid the whirling of chaff. Christ, in His Divine innocence, said to the Woman of Samaria, "Ye worship ye know not what"—being apparently under the impression that it might be desirable, on the whole, to know what one was worshipping. He thus showed Himself sadly out of touch with the twentieth-century mind, for the cry to-day is: "Away with the tedious complexities of dogma—let us have the simple spirit of worship; just worship, no matter of what!" The only drawback to this demand for a generalised and undirected worship is the practical difficulty of arousing any sort of enthusiasm for the worship of nothing in particular."

I (this is Bill speaking now) find the notion of revelation or God's self-disclosure to be a very exciting one. That the Maker of All would communicate with us would of course require that He speak what Luther called "baby talk". The greatest Christian theologian of the 20th Century, Karl Barth, often spoke about this reality. The notion that we can, in the words of Johannes Kepler, "think God's thoughts after Him" is electrifying. To continue with Dorothy Sayers a bit:

"So that is the outline of the official story—the tale of the time when God was the underdog and got beaten, when he submitted to the conditions he had laid down and became a man like the men he had made, and the men he had made broke him and killed him. This is the dogma we find so dull—this terrifying drama of which God is the victim and hero.

If this is dull, then what, in Heaven’s name, is worthy to be called exciting?

The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused him of being a bore—on the contrary, they thought him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified him “meek and mild,” and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies."

When I encounter YHWH of the Hebrew Bible, and when I encounter the Jesus of the New Testament, I am not concerned with "reinforcing existing belief". With Soren Kierkegaard, I think that is to objectify the Scriptures. I am concerned with what he referred to as "subjectivizing" them. Which is to say, that I open the book in order to encounter the living God Who has disclosed Himself in that book.

I am a science and nature "junkie". I am always out in the natural world. Every summer I spend many days kayaking with minke, and finback whales, and sometimes a few humpbacks show up. There are dolphins and porpoises and seals all around me, as I kayak near the 2nd largest natural whirlpool in the world (Old Sow off the coast of Campobello Island, N.B. Canada). These leviathans and my amazing surroundings fill my heart with wonder and worship. But that being said, I have never encountered anything in the natural world which fills me with the awe I feel when I believe I am in the presence of the Almighty as I read His word.

Alice,

In the Middle Ages theology was considered "regina scientiarum," queen of the sciences. Therefore if you studied science back then, you studied theology. The fact that you separate them-- as most of us do-- shows your modern. secularized orientation. May I recommend that you study "comparative" theology as I have (while not abandoning your study of natural sciences). Then you will marvel at the variety of beliefs that religion has generated thanks to the marvelous complexity of God, while continuing to marvel at the wonders created by God.

Dear Allison,

Your proposal is very tricky. I have studied science and theology altogether. Theology is the mother of all true sciences and will never diminish faith when studied with true and sincere heart of understanding the true God. Unless otherwise, theology being studied as other subjects, with pure reason without faith, will seem to diminish somebody's faith. Theology is very comprehensive in its essence - it is logical, based on true reason, saturated by true faith, and guided by true revelation. No such a theology can diminish one's faith but to uplift it. When science is purely humanly scientific without faith (though it must comprise faith), it becomes an empty vessel of spiritual truth.

Hi Nelson and Emmanuel,

Regarding "regina scientiarum", and the relationship faith has with {reason, wisdom, truth}, here's a paragraph that caught my attention:

"Faith most willingly carries reason along as far as reason can go and then goes on with wisdom to the full philosophic limit; and then it dares to launch out upon the limitless and never-ending universe journey in the sole company of TRUTH." [1]

This helped me see some old assumptions in a new light.

[1] the Urantia book, paper 103:9.7 (1141.5)

If you do not reconfigure and update your theology in the light of new knowledge then indeed your old theological concepts are going to let you down. Enhancing knowledge in all spheres result in old concepts being replaced by newer ones, in both science and theology

Well, my experience has been totally the opposite. The study of theology has deepened and expanded my faith. Mind you, I started my studies after reading and studying the text of the Bible for well over 30 years. And this included (with each passing year) believing that it was the inspired inerrant Word of God. What is lacking in most theological endeavors (especially since the dawn of higher criticism) these days is the lack of Bible knowledge, and faith in its inspiration.

When you fall in love with a woman (man) your gretaest desire is to stay with her (him). It is the same with Faith, it needs prayer (staying with God) if you pray you will know, St. Augustine say we can know only what we love.

If you love God, theology will come after, the reverse is simply impossible...

..and clearly studying science with love for the world outside is a form of prayer !

I used to be an agnostic, until I started to visit the Theology School in order to extend my knowledge about Church History for my research on medieval culture. I fell in love with God there, and I ended up studying Theology myself (I didn't finish, however, shame of me!). My personal experience is that studying Theology has opened me to faith, but of course that is just MY personal experience. I guess it depends on each one and also on the nature of the teachings one receives while studing and of the persons one meets there.

Faith and science are two paths to discover the same reality that's utter mystery and unfathomable to man due to his human limitation. I agree with those who linked faith with the experience of falling in love. Science too, is an invitation to fall in love with nature. This path can only lead you authentically towards the ultimate mysterious and almighty nature of God. Humans come to apprehend God's reality through faith (belief) and science (rationality). Both are endowments of the same God. Both must be put at the service of seeking him, and remaining with him. To say that the more you learn the intricacies of nature the more mysterious and mighty God becomes is to acknowledge a truth but juxtaposed with the fact that the more you study theology, the less your convictions become clear is a contradiction.

I think all depends on which side of religion you are standing and your relationship to God whom you are trying to understand. Faith is believed to be seeking understanding of who God is. Science is a clear manifestation of what God created and it may not entail the use of faith, but natural reason. One uses science to experiment what God has created but it is only faith that one approaches God. It could be said that faith is mystical union with the Ultimate Reality. Do not only read theology as other courses but let your mind and heart be devoted to God and you will come to experience the divine presence in your life.

Allison, undoubtedly there are as many bad theologians, percentage wise, as there are bad scientists. Since truth is noncontradictory, correct theology and correct science will complement one another. For example, if a theology contradicts rsr.org/fine-tuning (the fine tuning of the universe, solar system, and earth), then that theology is false. Of those doctrinal systems that pass that test, other scientific observations will eliminate other competing theologies.