Reconciling Religion and Science

[Earle Jones27]

*
Greetings!

In the attempt to come up with a rational reconciliation of Science and
Religion, I turned to my favorite biologist, Edward O. Wilson (Biology
Professor Emeritus at Harvard – two Pulitzer
prizes).

I admit that I am particularly biased in Wilson's favor: We were both
born in Birmingham, Alabama two years apart – 1929 and 1931. He
studied biology at the U of Alabama and then at Harvard. I studied
Engineering at Georgia Tech and then at Stanford (Harvard of the West!)

And just as I had, Wilson experienced falling away from religious
beliefs which he
had grown up with. He says he was more pious than the average teenager
in Birmingham, having been baptized "...laid back in the waters..." by
the Southern Baptist Church. My own church and baptism (just a light
sprinkle) was by the Southern Methodist Church.

Wilson said (in his book, "Consilience"):

"...I had no desire to purge religious feelings. They were bred in
me; they suffused the wellsprings of my creative life. I also
retained a small measure of common sense. To wit, people must
belong to a tribe; they yearn to have a purpose larger than
themselves. We are obliged by the deepest drives of the human
spirit to make ourselves more than animated dust, and we must have
a story to tell about where we came from, and why we are here.
Could Holy Writ be just the first literate attempt to explain the
universe and make ourselves significant within it? Perhaps science
is a continuation on new and better-tested ground to attain the
same end. If so, then in that sense science is religion liberated
and writ large."

Do you like that? "Science is a continuation on new and better-tested
ground...science religion liberated and writ large."

earle
*

[RSNorman]

Explain our universe and where we came from,yes.
Supernatural deity, no. Most people would say that is not a
continuation but a rejection.

[Jørgen Farum Jensen]

Absolutely, if later and better explanations like
Newtons, Darwins and Einsteins work is elevated
to holyness.

Which they already are to my mind.

Let churches preach physics and biology!


--

Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
— Ashley Montagu

[J. J. Lodder]

Earle Jones27 <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

> *
> Greetings!
>
> In the attempt to come up with a rational reconciliation of Science and
> Religion, I turned to my favorite biologist, Edward O. Wilson (Biology

> Professor Emeritus at Harvard - two Pulitzer

> prizes).
>
> I admit that I am particularly biased in Wilson's favor: We were both

> born in Birmingham, Alabama two years apart - 1929 and 1931. He

> studied biology at the U of Alabama and then at Harvard. I studied
> Engineering at Georgia Tech and then at Stanford (Harvard of the West!)
>
> And just as I had, Wilson experienced falling away from religious
> beliefs which he
> had grown up with. He says he was more pious than the average teenager
> in Birmingham, having been baptized "...laid back in the waters..." by
> the Southern Baptist Church. My own church and baptism (just a light
> sprinkle) was by the Southern Methodist Church.
>
> Wilson said (in his book, "Consilience"):
>
> "...I had no desire to purge religious feelings. They were bred in
> me; they suffused the wellsprings of my creative life. I also
> retained a small measure of common sense. To wit, people must
> belong to a tribe; they yearn to have a purpose larger than
> themselves. We are obliged by the deepest drives of the human
> spirit to make ourselves more than animated dust, and we must have
> a story to tell about where we came from, and why we are here.
> Could Holy Writ be just the first literate attempt to explain the
> universe and make ourselves significant within it? Perhaps science
> is a continuation on new and better-tested ground to attain the
> same end. If so, then in that sense science is religion liberated
> and writ large."

If he feels that Genesis is 'the first'
he is completely blinded by christian myopia.
It is obviously second hand, if not fifth hand,
and poor literature at that,

Jan