On last Monday's show, we talked a little about the tradition of giving something up for Lent. Customarily, this practice of self-sacrifice is thought to bring one closer to God. I suggest, however, that this gets at only half of the Great Commandment to love God with heart, soul, mind, and might and to love your neighbor as yourself. Seeking to draw closer to God without including your neighbor in the equation simply misses half the boat.
Instead, I mentioned on the show, I believe that a better Lenten discipline of self-sacrifice should lead to some benefit for neighbor or for creation. In other words, just giving up chocolate for Lent is at one level, but cutting down on travel by gasoline is a form of self-sacrifice that helps the greater good (in this case, by helping to preserve God's creation). Another example might be giving up (non-fair trade) coffee; the self-sacrifice is still achieved, and yet love for neighbor (this time exploited farmers) is also expressed.
So, as I like to ask on the show, what do you think? Do the practices of self-sacrifice help you grow closer to God? Is simple individual spiritual growth enough for a Lenten journey? Should scripture's command to love neighbor along with loving God be taken just as seriously during Lent?
Monday, February 25, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Religion, Superstition, and Science
On this morning's show, we talked again about the relationship between religion and science, with a particular view toward the contentions raised by evolution--natural selection, creationism, intelligent design, etc.
I've shared my views on this issue with the Benson community a couple times through letters to the editor of the local newspaper. Essentially, I believe that the Bible--including the stories we find in Genesis--were never intended to serve as a science text. As I've pointed out, the first two chapters in Genesis don't even agree with each other concerning the process and order of creation. That's because they are two different stories, written at two different periods of time, by (at least) two different authors.
In the last few centuries, our culture has increasingly made the mistake of confusing truth with fact. Facts are measurable, observable, and provable. Truth goes beyond facts. Truth is about meaning. It can be found in facts, but also in metaphors, symbols, and myths.
You will not find facts regarding the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis. When the stories were composed, scientific evidence was neither extant nor important. Now we do have evidence, and we have theories--developed through scientific method--based on that evidence. However, you may find in the Book of Genesis a truth that God brings order out of chaos, that God sustatins the world, and that we are created in God's image.
There is little more that I can add to this very old discussion. It is a misunderstanding to caricature science as in the business of myth-busting religious truths; religion and science are about two different ways of attempting to explain the world. They can and should be compatible, but they are different and also should be.
What makes the current debate so alarming is that for too many Christians, science is seen as an enemy. As a result, our country's current administration has adopted anti-science views as part of policy. Official tours of the Grand Canyon, for example, no longer address the amount of time it would take for such a geological feature to form. And global warming--a proven phenomenon--remains to be taken seriously by our current leaders.
This is extremely dangerous. There are facts and evidence-derived understandings that hold consensus in the scientific community that religion must come to terms with. The earth is much older than 6,000-10,000 years. Genetically, we have more than 98% in common with our nearest evolutionary relatives. Humankind is having a massive negative impact on the planet, and if we don't change our collective behavior drastically, then we will destroy God's creation. These are all things we should accept, regardless of whatever our interpretation of sacred texts may be.
On the radio show last week, Pastor Steve Rheingans and I talked a little about supersition and folklore. We never really arrived at a defintion of supersition, and where superstition differs from religion.
However, I believe that when religion denies solid science, it ceases to be religion and slides into superstition. Many Christians, including our government, have fallen into this trap.
I've shared my views on this issue with the Benson community a couple times through letters to the editor of the local newspaper. Essentially, I believe that the Bible--including the stories we find in Genesis--were never intended to serve as a science text. As I've pointed out, the first two chapters in Genesis don't even agree with each other concerning the process and order of creation. That's because they are two different stories, written at two different periods of time, by (at least) two different authors.
In the last few centuries, our culture has increasingly made the mistake of confusing truth with fact. Facts are measurable, observable, and provable. Truth goes beyond facts. Truth is about meaning. It can be found in facts, but also in metaphors, symbols, and myths.
You will not find facts regarding the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis. When the stories were composed, scientific evidence was neither extant nor important. Now we do have evidence, and we have theories--developed through scientific method--based on that evidence. However, you may find in the Book of Genesis a truth that God brings order out of chaos, that God sustatins the world, and that we are created in God's image.
There is little more that I can add to this very old discussion. It is a misunderstanding to caricature science as in the business of myth-busting religious truths; religion and science are about two different ways of attempting to explain the world. They can and should be compatible, but they are different and also should be.
What makes the current debate so alarming is that for too many Christians, science is seen as an enemy. As a result, our country's current administration has adopted anti-science views as part of policy. Official tours of the Grand Canyon, for example, no longer address the amount of time it would take for such a geological feature to form. And global warming--a proven phenomenon--remains to be taken seriously by our current leaders.
This is extremely dangerous. There are facts and evidence-derived understandings that hold consensus in the scientific community that religion must come to terms with. The earth is much older than 6,000-10,000 years. Genetically, we have more than 98% in common with our nearest evolutionary relatives. Humankind is having a massive negative impact on the planet, and if we don't change our collective behavior drastically, then we will destroy God's creation. These are all things we should accept, regardless of whatever our interpretation of sacred texts may be.
On the radio show last week, Pastor Steve Rheingans and I talked a little about supersition and folklore. We never really arrived at a defintion of supersition, and where superstition differs from religion.
However, I believe that when religion denies solid science, it ceases to be religion and slides into superstition. Many Christians, including our government, have fallen into this trap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)