Science and Religion

Yesterday at AUUF the 9 a.m. Forum topic was "Science vs. Religion." This was my first time visiting "the early service," which is much less like church than the 10:45 version.

The speaker was Dr. Arndt Von Hippel, an author and retired thoracic surgeon. He was charmingly Alaskan--boots, double-knee Carharts, plaid shirt.

The format for Forum is that the speaker talks for a short time, and then there is an extended, moderated discussion (more people saying what they want to say than actually responding to each other).

The discussion was different from what I expected, but still quite thought-provoking.

I expected a conversation about the recent increase in popularity of so-called Intelligent Design. There was one question about that (the speaker's response was that he thinks our culture has "odometer events," and that Y2K led to fear, which led to a surge in religious fundamentalism).

Most of the conversation, instead, was mainly religion-bashing. Hence yesterday's post asking "What is religion?"

I found myself in a funny position. I expected to go to a pep rally for those fighting Intelligent Design, and instead found myself looking for the sign-up sheet for the Defenders of Religion.

I of all people know that there is such a thing as bad religion.

But that doesn't mean religion is worthless.

Yesterday was a bit of a mirror, in a way. There are a lot of people at AUUF (and in many UU fellowships) who are wounded refugees from restrictive, guilt-inducing churches of all stripes. I am one of them. And I never want to forget how bad it was to live within such a prison (those who fail to learn from history...). But I also don't want to be held captive by my own woundedness. I don't want to shoot down anything that has to do with mystery and wonder just because it looks and smells a little bit like that thing that hurt me.

I think that it's a rare person who can live by science alone. Science is a slow, excruciating process. We have learned a great deal from science, but we are still not anywhere near being finding answers to the questions our hearts ask. Why do we exist? What is this thing called consciousness? What happens when we die? What does life mean?

Science isn't enough. We need spiritual reflection (I won't call it theology), too.

One of the pearls of great price I retain from seminary is a quote from Sally McFague: "Metaphors are strategies of desperation."

Metaphors are the pixie dust we throw into the unknown, hoping it will cling to something, and tell us its shape.

Where religion gets in trouble is when metaphor becomes dogma. A metaphor is not meant to be Truth. It is meant to be an imagined possibility. In a way, not much different than a scientific hypothesis (but with prettier language).

Dr. Von Hippel spoke yesterday about the differences between the linguistic brain and the pre-linguistic brain. He said something like, "If rabbits took the time to say, 'Look, there's a wolf running toward me,' rabbits wouldn't last long." Instead, the pre-linguistic brain reacts before the rest of the brain puts words to what's happening.

This is not unlike the relationship between reason and intuition. Intuition leaps on ahead, scanning the big picture, forming possibilities. Reason brings up the rear, analyzing the information at hand, evaluating possibilities that emerge from the intuitive imagination.

Both science and religion need reason and intuition. And science and religion need each other. How can we facilitate converation between the two of them?