The Question Is...

THE QUESTION IS:

Do human societies work like the latest scientific discovery, say in genetics/biology? That is what some think, and the human experiment may or may not work. And all of us will be prone to the outcome of such experiments...

Science, as the New Religion

Science has been a "blessing" to man, but just as much a curse. Science has blessed many with technological developments and medical 'miracles" that have brought convenience, and health. But, science today is really a religion.

Religion requires "worship". And worship is a form of submitting one's rationale to an "uncritical" mind-set. I think this is what had happened with the elite scientists that "fudged" on the data concerning global warming.

Science gives man answers that makes men feel comfortable and safe, as if they control their environment. And science has been "useful" in "controlling" society, just as religion was in the past. Anyone who quotes a scientific expert has the ear of the populace. But, what the populace doesn't know, for the most part, is the science itself is diverse, just as religion is.

There are certain formulas that a scientists uses to understand the physical world. But, there are many formulas, or ways of approaching the physical world. And this is what the university does in thier "discussions" about the world in all its aspects.

Man, though is more than his physical being, and this is what scientists seek to understand today. There is much that is left in question, now with the discoveries in neuroscience. How are we to understand man, when neuroscience says that the brain determines many aspects of a person's behavior? Is there to be a "committee" to determine what is to be "proper behavior", so that those that "don't fit" will be "fixed" by medicine? These are very pressing and pertinent questions concerning mankind's future.

What and how do we understand the social science that believed in the past that man was influenced by his enviornment? How much is the brain affected by experience, and how much is experience interpreted by the "form" of the brain? Is mental illness just a brain "dislocation" like an arm that is broken?

The ethical questions are many and profound in their implications. What does religion mean in such a context? Is religion just a "coping mechanism" of the brain to its environment? And how are we to know? Is it ethical to "test" on human subjects by forcing them into environments that would "force" the issue of how the brain adjusts to such "trauma"? Scientists that think such experiements are appropriate think that the benefit far outweighs the "costs" to the "guinea pig".

I fear for our future if scientists have such a view of man, where he is only a "frog" to be dissected. Men are more than "frogs", if one believes in any form of "God". And we know that experiements such as this would be against what the West has always stood for in human rights.

We have much to fear if science becomes a religion!

Life Forms

This morning while having breakfast with my husband, we talked about what made human life different from other forms of life, or could we make that distinction.

Scientists understand life's interdependence. It views life from a wholistic viewpoint. This is why there is so much concern over the environment. Without environment, then 'life' cannot function properly.

This is also the case in human contexts. Without the proper environment, life cannot function properly. Life is squashed, squelched, and squandered.

But, is there something greater than the equality of life forms? Is human life no different from biological systems?

The irreducible complexity of the world and the human being is beyond human ability to understand. I wonder if we will ever be able to understand everything about the world and life.

Life is truly a mystery. In this sense, life goes beyond the material realm. Life points beyond itself, as a design. But, what kind of design is the question. That is what philosophers these days are quandering over.

I just hope they don't reduce life, otherwise, we are headed for quanity over quality and that would be a disservice to mankind.

Betwixst and Between

My husband and I just got back from a Science/Religion conference this evening. It was geared toward "religious responses" to Darwinian evolution. I found several things interesting, but one especially so, the "is" and the "ought".

The emphasis on the "religious response" was due to "fear". A "fear of the power of the religious" in America to form policy around "religion" and not the "facts of science". This is what was called the "is". The religious were to remain inside their domain of what is called the "ought".

While facts are based in real reality of the everyday experience and scientific endeavor, the religious are given a "place" of handing out platitudes and metaphors, which do nothing to change reality, except in someone's head. Is this enough?

I find it hard to defend an "ought" or a "should". An "ought" or "should" means that the reality that exists should be changed, but the question is not about change, but "how" and "what"! How does one view the change that would make life different or better? These are questions about values, and not ideals of "shoulds" and "oughts". Values are based on personal conviction and are given priority according to their importance. Values form one's personal ethics in prioritizing one's moral choice.

"Shoulds" and "oughts"may or may not bring about a "right", whether of needed change or ethical decision. The "right" is limited by cultural definitions, at times. And these cultural definitions may or may not be "enlightened". There are only personal choices, not universal ones.

Revelation has been touted by the religious as a means to the 'ideal" or the "shoulds", "oughts", and "right". But, revelation should be "grounded" by "enlightening" one's mind to what "is". Without understanding that what we know is limited about the mystery that is in this universe, we will act presumptutously, arrogantly, pompously, irrationally, or radically. This is not to say that science, nor religions do not give us some understanding of the mystery. But, we do not have but a part of the whole. We must deal in the "is", as this is the only way to really communicate about and make a difference in the "real world". The real world consists of the political and the public, as well as the personal and the private.

Therefore, I think reason is the best way to approach reality and others, so that change may come through shaping policy, making decisions, and committing one's life.

Meta Narratives and "Understanding"

Our country's value of diversity got me thinking this morning about the value of meta-narratives. Meta-narratives are "The Big Story" that resonates within a certain society. These stories create the meaning-making paradigms that makes sense out of life.

Meta-narratives are "social constructs" that are not True, but "true". Meta-narratives are culturally bound. This is why people "assume" that our Country is a "Christian nation". This is the only understanding that some know. Truthfully, there were diverse viewpoints about 'God" and how He worked, but most agreed that "god" was useful to form society.

God was useful to form society because "god" could be "appealed" to in granting all people "inalienable rights". The 'Creator" was understood to bring "order" when America no longer valued the "Divine Right of Kings". We were a people bound together through identity with our government's "equality under law". Laws were the means of maintaining society's social contract.

Philosophers are men who like to imagine what is and formulate the ideas around what should be. Scientists are also philosophers, some without knowing it. These are natural philosophers that used to understand that their "discoveries" were based on natural laws. But, with modern science's understanding of the world as "chaotic", there was no more "ultimate meta-narrative". This is where the science and religion debate is presently.

Some start with premises about God and formulate their theology, while others want to base their theology on scientific knowledge, knowing that their understanding today may change tomorrow. The difference is where one begins; in speculation or "facts" of the real world. Many scientists don't even bother with speculation. These deal only with the facts, but they miss certain aspects of life that make life "human and humane".

So, while I do not agree that any one "meta-narrative" is the 'ultimate", meta-narratives are useful in society's formation. Religiousity is absolutizing the relative, while reliougiousness is a form of understanding meaning-making.

Justified By Science to Dis-Criminate

I have been following the debate over the energy proposal that passed the House by a short margin and now is to be heard in the Senate. This energy bill would be a financial burden on American families, increasing taxes and limiting resources. It is supposed that there would be another federal agency that would investigate the energy effieciency of a home before it can be sold. Windows, doors, furnaces, appliances, etc. would all be checked to meet federal regulations. Why? Because science says it is best that we limit ourselves for the whole of mankind.

While I agree that limits are necessary in every area of life, one must ask the question why this is to be one of the few scientific "values" that drive public policy....Poverty, and education are others. Whenever a particular scientific view drives policy, we limit the American experiment, because of government's need to control these "suggested" abuses.

It was discussed today on a radio program that there might be federal regulation of smoking in the military, and there has been discussion of regulating our resturants. Why? healthcare costs.

The globalist believes that American is an imperialist country, because they defend their ideology abroad, instead of being tolerant of cultural differences. I find that multiculturalism doesn't want to protect individual liberties so much as protect group identifications. This is what is driving the controversy in the newly nominated Supreme Court Judge, who is Hispanic.

She want to protect individual rights, at the expense of business interests. While obviously, I do not believe in discrimination, one has to question when to discriminate. Where do we draw the lines? All of mankind cannot live under a one world government unless we want to give over our freedom to a regulated and monitored beauracracy. The balance of power will be the "lowest common denominator", as Third World countries compete in a globalized market that is filled with coveting and greed. Many African nations have been known to have corrupt business practices and prey on the uninformed.

Nationalism and national interests are dismissed as narrow-minded, and narrowly focused. Those who believe in our country's ideals should given up their citizenship to a globalized citzenship. This is the paradigm change from modernity to post-modernity.

While there is value to post-modern understanding, it should not drive policy, otherwise it will dissolve national interests, and defense for the 'common good".

There are valid disagreements about global warming among scientiist, but those who are politically connected are the ones that are heard. And just as every other group, scientist live in a culturally driven paradigm of materialistic naturalism in a postmodern context.

Just today there was an article in the Washington Times about the EPA official who had buried critical evidence against global warming.

Anyone who has worked in the federal government undrstands that it is easy to set up busniesses, protect special interests, and use federal programs to "milk" the American people of hard- earned money in the name of public good, while privately useing it for cronies, etc. Beauraucracies are too big to be accountable and unaccountability is a primary cause of corruption. The press cannot even be privy to certain information.

America is the freest nation on earth, but will not remain so, if science continues to do the dirty work of political correctness. Most Americans will just accept whatever science deems is a necessary "evil", because most are ill-informed as to the limitations of science. We do live in paradigmic understandings about the world and life. We must protect our own "world" as Americans to remain free.

Mulling Over Many Things....And "Coming to Terms" With None....

My husband and I just got back from visiting friends and family in Europe. I love Europe's beauty, diversity, and history, but will maintain my loyalty to the values of "unity and diversity" within my own country, the U. S. A. More specifically, my sis and bro in law accompanied us on this trip, to see some sights in Italy, which was an educational experience, as well, as familial fellowship.

I will have to say that there were so many things that impressed me (from art in the Sistine Chapel ; to an inteview on CNN of the famous fashion designer, Prada; to a movie I saw on the way home, "New In Town"). I will have to take the time to process them all. And as I do, as always, I will write.

I think humans are made to "think on these things", and in doing so, grow in understanding of
"what matters" and how to evaluate concepts that affect one's life. This brings wisdom in knowing what to do and how to respond in different situations, as history is a "teacher" of wisdom.

I am sorry to say that many do not think that "thinking" is valuable, as they understand faith to be a variance with "reason". That is fine, as long as they maintain their irrationality within their specific "sect" and do not disturb the rest of us.

Science cannot be devoid of beauty, but how is beauty to be "a science"? Beauty, as well as science, points beyond itself to another realm that has always mystified. Man has sought to understand this realm in many ways, and man's understanding of faith has evolved over the eons of time.

The individual, also "evolves", or grows, in "coming to terms" with what is true, good and beautiful. These are the concepts that define the individual's values and goals. These "concepts" cannot be confined to any one realm of understanding, but are representative of the "whole" concept in understanding.

I will continue to ponder as I live and move and have my being. I think we need more ponderers, how about you?

What Is a "Dog" in Cultural Terms?

"Dog" was a derogatory term in scripture. "As a dog returns to his vomit"....dogs are still understood in derogatory ways. Both science and religion use the term differently from their perspectives.

Science uses "dog" as those who are not "top dogs", as science understands the "survival of the fittest" and since this is the "way of the world", this is the way they understand survival. It lacks humility and evenness of temper concerning reason's "claims" to truth! Because science is focused on the pragmatic, it looses focus on more universal reasons of practice. Sciences specificity dissolves ways of crossing boundaries of understanding, as its understandings are so specifically specialized. It demands diversity at the expense of unity. But, it is reason's strength.

While science's claims can be arrogant and dissolve focus on a unifying focus, so are religious claims to truth. Religion understands itself as the "center of the universe", while dismissing the absolute vastness that is the universe. The Church's understanding remains ideologically similar to their view of the physical universe in the past. The earth was considered the center by the Church, but science revealed that the earth was not the center. While the Church eventually came to embrace science's claims, it still remains convinced of itself as "the center" of truth, not understanding it's purpose. Religion is contextually oriented without knowing it. "Dogs" in religious terms are those who do not adhere to understanding their way (cultural distinctives). Religion demands conformity and limits diversity

This is where the university should live, in the space between the two! The universals of science must understand that they only know in part, while attempting to understand the whole. And religion should understand their contextuality of "difference" is not universal, but no less important to affirm. The Church is one among many faiths, which represent many cultural forms of understanding "god".

Diversity in unity and unity in diversity is imperative in this complex, interdependent and vast "world". We should not define our understandings as ultimate, but broaden our understandings through diverse interactions with others that are open to difference and open to learn. None of us will know everything there is to know, but I have a dream that one day, all of us will become unified diversity.

Is There Nothing Supernatural About Resurrection?

The resurrection of Jesus was the 'faith" of a believing community to the "hope" produced in the human heart by the message of a "god" that was "for them", the outcast, and forsaken.

While Job's revelation of "god" was a "mystery" that was beyond a "cause and effect:" of earning "god's favor", which undermines the understanding of "god" for the religious. The early Church "created the story" of "hope of resurrection" for those who had no "hope". These were not historical, but mythological religious images that met "universal" human "emotional" need, of belonging.

The apostle Paul, a "law-abiding" and observant Pharisee, understood this message of "hope" as a uniting of "all people", humanity. There was no distinction of the Jew or the Greek (Gentile).

The historical development of Church traditon grew up around the initial "story" of "hope for all" (Jew and Gentile/Greek), which formulated the Church's apologetic arguments for the validity of the "story".

With the development of scientific discovery and the understanding of the the human person through the social sciences, the "supernatural story" seemed unbelievable. The West has thus abandoned, or is abandoning the supernaturalistic "story" for a "natural" one. The Church is seeking a way to address this need, but apologetics won't do when the whole "story" has been undermined through understanding things in a more realistic way.

Some have thought that since the Church's main "mission" was to those who had no "power" then the Church should seek to develop those outside the political and religious "power structures", just as their "moral model", Jesus, did. The social "gospel" gave rise to this "mission" to those who were so convinced.

But, while humanitarian causes were the emphasis of the social gospel, there was little distinction of the Church from America's mission or message of individual "specialness" and humanitarian aid or mission as a nation, which has led to the Church's demise as an important influence in the culture, as a whole.

The Church developed two responses. One responded by accomodating to American culture (nominalism) and the Church became indistinct from any other social organization that sought similar goals, or had similar values.

The other response tried to define the Church in more distinctive ways from the nation's interest. The separation of the sacred and secular began in our culture, with the Puritans, which has led to a super- spiritualizing the text, traditon and community. The Church in distinguishing oneself in opposition to the "other" (the nation's interest) became undermining to the Church's believability, as it left the "real world" for a "transcendental one".

I find that false distinctions are only means of meeting narcisstic needs of "difference", instead of uniting with what we can and impacting society at large. Since there is no distinction of the sacred and secular, the Church has "problems" with identifying itself apart from "natural" human understandings. This is why the Church has almost died in the West and why Newsweek said that America had died as a Christian nation.

Just as there was really no difference between the Jew and the Greek, there is no difference between the sacred and secular in knowledge or human truth. All truth is God's. Truth is not a way of interpretation, as that would be dependent on humans, but truth is a matter of discovery, which is a matter of science, which is a part of the 'real world".

Stem Cell Research continued

This morning's paper had an editorial about stem cell research that got my mind back onto that challenge before us.

The writer was not religious, but was concerned over our President's lack of boundary in regards to stem cell research. The President was going to base his policy on "facts of science". Science cannot be an ultimate guide for life in this world, otherwise, we have dissolved life of value or meaning. This writer had been on a Bio-ethics committee under the Bush adminstration, so he was not speaking off the top of his head.

He was concerned that no boundary or definition about 'life" was a disregard of human life. Was any life "made" either thourgh in vitro fertilization or cloning of the same moral fabric? He was making a moral distinction of valuing human life, as to our responsibility for human life. This is where the discussion should be. And it should be a discussion that is free from dogma and ideology, but not free from reasoned boundary concerning human life, if we continue to believe that human life has any value apart from the 'greater good" argument. The author speicifically stated that human life was never to be used as a means, but always an end. That is good moral philosophy. I think most rational people could agree with that.

Ethics and Science in Stem Cell Research

Because of the recent commitment of our president to stem cell research, there has been much discussion about science and ethics. Our president suggested that stem cell research was not to be determined on an ideological commitment, but on the "facts of science".

While I believe that science has added to our quality of life, science should not function without a proper ideological frame, which are the ethical questions. Many on TV, radio and in the paper were talking about the struggle between science and ethics. Science does not answer any "moral question", it just "works". But, should our society condone anything that "works"? Pragmatism is the road to expediency, but not the road to wisdom.

Stem cell research holds much promise for those who suffer from many diseases, so this area of research would breed much "good". The ethical questions are based on questions that cannot be solved quickly, if at all, and only divide all of us along ideological lines. So, why attempt to answer any ethical questions when science's expediency in meeting human need is of primary importance? Isn't human suffering something that we all should be committed to? But, at what costs?

I have written before about the questions concerning genetic research, and some of the same questions apply to stem cell research. Who will determine when an embryo has become a separate life? And how will that be determined? Will each case pose the question and allow the individual woman the choice, such as we do with organ transplants? Is the embryo to be viewed as an "organ", part of a woman's body, that might give life to another? Organs must be taken from the donor while the donor is alive for the organ to be fully functioning. Our state license bureaus ask us whether we want to be an organ donor when we get our driving lincense. If we agree to be an organ donor, then we are giving our living consent for our organs to be used for a 'greater purpose" of saving another life. Is this wrong to allow the individual a choice? I don't think so.

Many religious believe that to give any person the right to choose is a "sin" against God, since God is the giver of life. But, when does God give life, at the moment of conception? at the moment of birth? at the moment of the heart-beat? at the moment of brain waves? at the moment of viability? When? These questions are not easily answered.

I think more importantly is who will determine when life "happens", as the political realm must remain "free" for choice, otherwise, we have political or religious authorities determining for the individual what is "best". Either way, we will be setting up our public forum for ideological war. Personal decision is of utmost importance, such as we allow with organ donation. This personal decision should not be made without all information, or deep reflection, as we must be convinced in our own minds. The separation of Church and State is commenable in this arena as well.

The Psycho/Spiritual/Physical State of the Human

This "hot" topic in theological, psychological and religious studies is the question of mind/body and how our physicality impacts our "selves". Is the brain the same as the "mind"? Is our environment the determining factor in life? Or is there an innate nature within the individual that is distinct from others, like fingerprints?

I do think that there is major "news" to discover in these arenas, but my concern is with a presupposition of the scientists (if there is one) of determination of environmental issues. Of course, this would support the Church's role in helping the family and school in the development/education of the child. The development and education of children is now in question, as many "ethical" children can be raised apart from religious teaching. And the Church's doctrine of the atonement, Jesus' life, and because of these issues, the social structure itself is in crisis. The struggle for the Church to survive these "onslaughts" of "modernity" is what is on the forefront of "news headlines" in theological circles. I personally do not find that reflecting on "theology" apart from reality is beneficial. Hope should be based on real issues of this world, instead of 'pie in the sky" hope for the next.

The Church is looking for a way out of gnostic tendencies in separating the "real world" from the "spiritual one". Many distorted doctrines have hindered man's flourishing, because man if viewed as "so fallen", that there is no redeeming quality within man. Everything that a "natural man' does is questioned, as lower than a 'spiritual man". The wall of separating the sacred and secular has hindered the Church's connection to the world and has hindered how everything 'in the world" has been viewed from "art", human virtue, to higher education. These "worldly" avenues are labelled as leading the "elect" astray and hindering the 'spirit".

I think that there is "hope" for the future of religion in discussing these issues, and I hope that I can be a part of the discussion. I know I will, if not directly, I will keep informed....

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.

The Problem of Exclusivist Claims

In all of my reading and sifting, struggling and I'm sure not understanding all of the complexities as it regards the tradition of Christian faith. One thing is for sure, there is no consensus, in regards to the text's understanding whether its hisoricity, it's meaning, and how the Church came to be.

I find that the dialogue is interesting, because it doesn't make absolute claims, but listens and stretches to understand.

I find, on the other hand, those who want to assert certainty in their exclusivist positions, are doing so for other reasons than "truth". There may be personal identity issues, or personal agendas, perhaps, even a "protection of the faith "once delivered to the saints". This stance saddens me, as it leaves large gaps in bridging an understanding among religious traditions, that would lend itself to human compassion, instead of dogmatic assertions and concrete opinions that harden one's attitude and approach to those who disagree.

I just heard today that the public schools were doing education in diverse religious traditions, helping students to understand another's traditon. I think this is a good exercise for minds to be expanded and hearts enlarged.

The Christian Church has much to loose, however, in opening up the discussion to others that differ in views. Although I do believe that culture is influenced by tradition, it isn't always in a positive way. Absolute claims are those that breed radicalism and an irrationality that leads to emotional reactions, instead of a steady and rational dialogue. We need more of the later in our world today, not the former.

I am hoping that those who are apologists will at least concede that their claims also "bridge a gap" of understanding within history. Whether one believes Scripture is historical or not, still need to admit that history is not a science of certain claims of exclusive interpretive texts.