Science Is Religion's "Step-Child"?

Some believe that the world functions along separate lines of understanding, religion speaks for God, and science speaks to everything else. The problem of divorcing the two, is it leaves little room for religion and God. This is where the battle lines become fierce, as the exclusivist vent their fears by enforcing a "brittle" understanding of a text, or tradition. In Christian history, this is where fundamentalism was born. But, staunch stands do nothing to endear the Church in the public square.

Others would argue that "religion is science's step-child", because religion is just useful to serve other ends. Religion is to be a useful means to incorporate cooperation from the "feeble minded", who depend on religion. While dependence on religion may be true for identification, or cultural forms that help make the individual feel "at home", I think the attitude of "usefulness" is inappropriate and demeaning to others.

While I agree that tradition limits "free-thought", tradition is useful to serve the purposes of acculturation in a culture. Our American culture does not define itself on a primary religious tradition, as we believe that religion is a private matter. We affirm religious freedom and tolerance in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Just today, while talking with my hairdresser, who just became a deputy in the Episcopol Church, he informed me that the reason the Episcopol Church separated from the Anglican Church was because of the American Revolution. We were not be be subservient to a king, in our religion. This is a challenge today in the Anglican tradition, as well as other organized traditions. Where is authority and by what means are issues to be dicussed and decisions made?

Science has challenged our understanding of man and nature and we will never be finished with exploring all the avenues available in seeking undersanding of our physical world. The challenge for the religious, is to understand their faith within a scientific framework. Faith is not dependent on doctrine, or belief, or text, but on life itself. Therefore, science should not threaten the faithful, it should only challenge our minds in understanding any limitations on science. So, the call to the Church should be in ethics. Ethics brings pertinence to the Church and gives a voice in the public square.

Memory and Meaning

Some think that we are only the products of our experiences. While I do believe that experiences influence us and sometimes determine us in certain ways, I do not believe that they define everything about a human.

Take, for instance, my upbringing as a Baptist. I went to church everytime the doors opened and for the most part, found my friends within her doors. But, my husband and I do not "connect" with Baptists, theologically, or otherwise. We have visited many Baptists churches on many different occasions in the many places we have lived. I do not think that those who want to define another's life based on experience alone will find the "truth" about the "human".

I don't know all there is about brain science, but I do know that many factors go into the mix of what makes a person, a person, as well as the individual's certain bent. Christians, in the West, have understood that the bent of man is "sinful". I do not believe that sin is within, so much as without. What do we do with our life and the experiences in it? How do we interpret the things that transpire? These are the very struggles I have had for the past 14 or so years, as I have evaluated my faith in and through my experience. It has impacted how I have understood my faith.

Ethics is about how we treat our neighbor. And ethics is about how we do "business' and life, in general. While I don't believe that there are specificities of lifestyle, as these are personal convictions and evaluations, I do believe that the values that one is committed to are the ones that impact the life's color as a whole. Ethics is the broad-scale approach to doing "life".

I had understood my faith through theological belief, that meant I was to be included, no matter what. But, belief and belonging, did not match what I experienced in the behavior of community. Different belief systems evaluate their in-groups on different basises....I was floundering as to understand things and put my life together when I went back to school and then experienced my brother's suicide. Sometimes experiencing tragedy that is inexplicable and not experiencing the grace of and in community can be damgaing and damning to one's faith.

I do not by any means mean to sound like I am complaining. No, in fact, I am blessed in many ways to have come to a point of evaluating myself, my life, and my faith in ways that I would not have done otherwise. So, I will give thanks for all of the pain. I do not think that "God ordained anything" in my life. But, I do believe that all things are useful. This is a point of not playing a blame game, but a learning game. It is the mind-set to understand that "life happens" and move on, get over it, after it has been sieved through one's consciousness long enough to have and make meaning to and for one's life.

I am fortunate to have a family around me that we can see regularly. I cherish that and try to allow that to "fill" the need for community. I take pleasure in simple things, like my dog's loyalty, or my grandchild's smile. I will continue to try to "make meaning". But the meaning will not be some "transcendent meaning" or value, but personal meaning. As life is about "what one makes it".