Simply put, this blog is about science and religion.
Or reason and faith, if you prefer.
More specifically, it's about how the two are often at odds — or made to be at odds — by opposite sides of the culture wars. My fascination with this topic was forged in large part during the crucible that was the Bush 43 years; the idea to examine it in blog form specifically, however, only came in the waning months of that administration. My purpose for this blog is both personal and professional: as a means to explore these themes for my own education and self development, and to use it as a launch pad for future writing projects.
Today, the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin (and Abraham Lincoln) seems like an auspicious day to officially start this blog up (it's sat languishing for several weeks after I created it). This post is meant to delineate my focus here, which will be useful for me as much as the reader (and since I have no readers just yet, especially useful to me).
So at the outset, here's what I think is important to know about me: I consider myself a man of both science and faith. Even as a child, I never felt the two to be mutually exclusive; never thought the two must inherently be at odds with each other. If God created the universe and life here on earth, it seemed natural that he would be the one to set in motion all these natural processes by which the natural world operates.
Of course, I never could explain the idea of Adam and Eve, but I never worried about it because I never bought into such strict interpretations of the Bible.
In fact, I never really bought into much of organized religion. As I got older, I became interested in Eastern religions (Zen Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism) and philosophies, and like many Westerners, began to incorporate the aspects of those religions and ways of thinking that made the most sense to me into my own, very nebulous belief system. In high school, and again in college, as I learned about Islam, I also grew an interest in that religion and the myriad cultures that practice(d) it.
I gradually began to refer to myself as "nominally Catholic." Given the wide variety of belief systems I saw in the world, and the thousands of years behind many of them, I reasoned that no one religion could possibly have it ALL right. I started looking at them as different paths toward the same goals.
In high school I started getting interested in archaeology, and when I entered college, that was the course of study I pursued (along with the requisite courses in cultural and biological anthropology and linguistics). It's this education that most shapes the way I look at the world: through the lense of evolution and human culture. Through that lense, religion began to take on a fascinating new aspect: as a vital component of human cultures, in which social mores were codified and transmitted.
However, during my coursework, I was also struck by a point made by one of my adjunct professors: That "Science" (yes, with the big "s"), like "Religion," was a human construct, a way of looking at the world and seeking out answers. Like religion, it could turn dogmatic and seek to supress those things which went against established convention. That lesson has stuck with me ever since.
During all these years, though, I never lost the sense that there was something greather out there, something behind the veil in front of our eyes that we call "reality"; I never lost the sense that I was connected to it, that it flowed through me and everything around me.
Being nominally Catholic, it's most easy to refer to it as God, but I also like to think of it as a life force. Yes, this concept is no doubt influenced by the one made famous in "Star Wars," but for me it more directly comes from the concept of ki (in Japanese; chi in Chinese), which I'd become familiar with through my training in traditional karate.
Eventually my eduction rolled into a career in archaeology, and my co-workers, like many in the field, I think, were a particularly atheistic lot. My sense of connection with that greater-whatever waned a bit, in hindsight, but was never lost. In the nearly three years since I left that job, it's gradually begun to strengthen (for a number of reasons).
All of this brings me to the foundational motivation for this blog, an argument in the culture wars that most rankles me: that to believe in a religion is to be somehow "unevoloved." That faith in something other than reason and science is the sign of a weak mind. That a world without religion would be a world ruled by sanity and peace.
So this is my counter argument: Belief is an inherent part of the human condition; that to abolish religion is to deny a fundamental nature of our being; that any hope of abolishing it is, in fact, impossible.
To blame religion for all the world's ills, especially war, is near sighted. As a concept, religion sounds just as good on paper as capitalism, democracy, socialism, communism or any other human construct. In practice, all of those systems can, and have, been corrupted and bent to the will of humans. And whether the motivation is religious, economic or political, science has often served as the tool to do terrible things to other humans and our planet.
That's not to say I'm comfortable with unquestioning adherence to a religious faith, though. To cling to a belief system with a mind shut off from knowledge and insight accumulated through observation, research, experimentation, reason, deduction and reevaluation — the scientific method — is just as near sighted.
"Zealot" is a dirty word to me. I consider "hypocrite" to by one of its synonyms. I've found both religion and science inspire some to zealousy.
So again: This blog is meant to mediate the scientific and religious. My goal is to learn more about the natural and social sciences and the many faiths of the world, and how they all contribute to our quest as humans: To seek and know. I hope it inspires good dialogue and debate. I'm looking forward to the journey.
