Skip to content

Faith and Reason

March 14, 2017

“If you’ve got a religious belief that withers in the face of observations of the natural world, you ought to rethink your beliefs — rethinking the world isn’t an option.” — PZ Myers, biology professor

My thinking is that if you believe that God created the natural world, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that there shouldn’t be a conflict between the two? So, if there is, then one might need to consider that their interpretation is wrong, not the findings in the natural world. I find that the problem is how one interprets their religious texts; and each group tends to believe that they’re right. There’s also a tendency to think of religious texts as if they’re science books and to read into them our presuppositions.

I’ve been a student of religion my whole life; and even majored (along with philosophy) in it in college. And, although I hardly ever talk about it (largely because it’s no one’s business), my spirituality is very important. I find no conflict at all; and like even the Dalai Lama has said many times: if the findings of science are conclusive that a particular religious idea is wrong, then go with the science. I will, say, however, that science and reason only go so far. There is another way of knowing that is transcendent, and it goes beyond reason. There appears to be a gap between what we can reason and what we can know via the transcendent function; and we have to leap across that gap.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: