On Wed. Sept. 12th Dr. Townes, Nobel Prize winner in Physics, gave a lecture on Science and Religion. His own beliefs being babtist, his main opinion was that science and religion are converging. Dr. Townes point of view was that science and religion are much more similar then people think. As time goes on we are learning more and more about the world, as well as more of what is still unknown. He compared ideas that are seen to pertain to one area as being a focus for both; such as the siectific method, faith and experiments. Sowing that on a daily basis people test their faith by trying experiments. This will show them if there is a reason to believe. His definition of the two topis were;
Science~ "Attempt to understand how the universe works"
Religion~ "Attempt to understand purpose and meaning in the universe"
His talk in summary was ment to purswade people to keep an open mind, not be set on chosing either science or religion but to try to understand both.
Dr. Townes disscussion was influential because it showed the wrong of everyone. We all have set beliefs wheather they are towards scientific findings or religious history. Everyone believes in something and feels attached to it, enough to defend it. Yet by creating this wall of defining ourselves we force out other information that could change our beliefs. Myself I don't like having religious discussion with people because it creates such tension and is hard to have a civilized conversation when you are violating someone's beliefs. Dr. Townes himself said that he doesn't think what we know now should be set, that both religion and science are evolving. How can we set our beliefs on what was known thousands of years ago. It seems as though in the science perspective there is more of a willingness to accept change then in the religious view. I cannot justify this with my little knowledge of religion but it seems that most beliefs are the same today as they were hundreds of years ago. This makes things harder to understand if we figure we already know everything. Research i s what keeps our society growing and advancing, hopefully this is true in a person's religious understanding as well.
I agree with Dr. Townes that everyone should keep thier eyes open and search for discoveries in science and religion to futher our understanding of the universe and it's meaning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I very much regret not having gone to this talk. Hopefully there will be further talks like this in the near future at Redlands.
I do want to comment on maybe one or two things. I applaud the fact that Dr. Townes encourages an open mind when regarding religion and science. Understanding with an eye to clarity about what we mean is important. What seems unfortunate to me is that his attempt at a definition at what religion is delimits it in ways which constrict its very life at what religious practice means for those who are religious.
If one says that the definition of religion is the attempt to understand purpose and meaning as Townes appears to, there is something important lost here. That is, what is lost is the fact that for the religious person who holds certain beliefs there is no 'attempt'. The way he believes and the way s/he sees the universe, and the way that s/he goes about his life shows what s/he takes to be purposeful and meaningful. There is no attempt. Attempting means you give some sort of theory; and in doing so you acknowledge that you might be wrong.
This way of thinking that seems to be imputed onto the religious believer these days is a kind of 'provisionalism'. The believer under these conditions has a belief that is prone to being discredited if his/her beliefs don't stand up to certain evidence, in this case what science takes to be adequate evidence. But what would it mean for a Muslim to say I believe there to be one God and Muhammad is his prophet - provisionally? Or, the Christian to say I believe Jesus is the son of God in heart and mind - provisionally? Or for the Hindu who says that s/he will be reincarnated again unless s/he renounces his desires - provisionally? This makes faith out to be a kind of comic relief in relation to science. How could we prove statements that were never meant to be proven empirically?
This relates to what you said, "He compared ideas that are seen to pertain to one area as being a focus for both; such as the scientific method, faith and experiments." But how can he say that faith is in the same area as scientific method? Faith has never been thought to be methodological nor falsifiable? There is on the contrary a confessional attitude faith has which has nothing to do with method or falsification - both attributes which are intrinsic to science.
I think you make an important observation when you say that research (I assume scientific) keeps our society advancing. But I also think it's equally important to realize that the interest our society has is to grow 'in that way'. But scientific advancement is not the only way to grow. Spirituality has never meant an increase in material productivity or technology. It is something completely different and, to many like the indigenous people we're studying, equally valid given the kind of interest one has.
Post a Comment