Darwin's Teacup

These last few days have seen me and Spartacus shooting some heavy emails back and forth. One topic — largely unblogged by yours truly thus far — deals with the failing state of Earth's health, due to this near-infection we humans have been on her. He highly recommends reading up from David Quinn's works, and the intensity of his interest in Quinn's ideas on being responsible, forward-thinking residents (and stewards) of this Earth have me piqued. Stay tuned… patiently.

Much of our e-dialog as well has paralleled my postings here — pivoting and ricocheting off a couple of his emails. He had pounced on the apparent dichotomy between that dogma, and the realm of science/reason. In sum, Acceptance of either evolution or God need not be a mutually exclusive dichotomy.

It's no surprise to anyone that I have a deep faith life — but being Christian (specifically, Catholic) does not compel me to believe in the tiny demi-universe most creationists insist is ours. And I don't, and have been shouting this — and why — into the void of the blogosphere for some days now.

I was so moved, intellectually, by an email from Spartacus early on Wednesday that I actually logged on here from work and posted his note. It being Ash Wednesday also, I went to Mass after work, and then returned to WordPress once home and added my own two shekels (see "Darwin's Tempest").

Spartacus read my posting, and emailed me:

——Original Message——

Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:24 PM

[…] Though we don't share the same spiritual orientation, I have a very deep respect for your beliefs. I admire you even more for them because I know you are sincere, unlike those who claim to be Christians yet are betrayed by their actions as being anything BUT—sometimes it seems like there are more of them in the world than the genuine article. […]

No, brother, they're a loud minority. But they get the press.

(And <squirming in some discomfort> just about the last thing I'm looking for in this world is admirers, or even to move anyone by sincerity they may see. It's just me here, and I see more fault and flaw and failing than anything worth admiring. Yet… the charge that flows into me by taking hold of the Divine… does also flow through me and out into the world as well, and I can see where it's noticeable to some people. Almost like Nikola Tesla surrounded by lightning, some days!)

Spartacus later weighed in further on my Wednesday posting:

——Original Message——

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:21 AM

In our multi-cultural society, how can we possibly unite science and Doctrine? Matters of faith are matters for the individual to mull over, and many who do mull come to different conclusions. Science is a method of testing hypotheses, and eventually drawing conclusions based on what we have observed and tested. Science does not and can not test hypotheses concerning the existence of God—God is not subject to the scientific method. God is a matter of faith, and faith has nothing to do with the scientific method. If one wants to privately believe in "God" as the "prime mover" of the universe, or the universe itself, that's fine, but those beliefs have no business in PUBLIC scientific discourse.

I answered:

——Original Message——

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:28 AM

Sparks, I was less than clear — comes from being up past naptime, and spreading myself too thin in the evenings (I generally snap back overnight).

I'm with you on this: science and religion cannot be united. Science (largely) sits inside this universe and measures, tests, analyzes, describes, concludes on it; faith/religion and philosophy look behind the curtain and under the rugs (oops; there's another scientist; sorry — carry on) to deduce from the intangibles and the subjective (philosophy) and putatively divine revelation (faith) more of purpose than of function.

(PS: Faith is belief; religion = faith + exercise of ritual.)

For me (and, I suspect, for many minds), the sciences validate and enrich my own faith. Or to put it in rather avionic terms, science is the blueprint and balsa; faith is the clear image in your head of the aircraft in flight… and the astounding fact that occasionally that very same craft — only much bigger and louder — buzzes by and waggles its wings when and where you least expect it.

The purpose of science as a discipline cannot be merely to validate faith, however. Nor can faith narrowly rest on science alone (not without deifying it AS "God"); for the bigger, more open mind (hand raised here again) they are cousins, maybe even brother/sister… and not in any West Virginian sense, either!

That gap I was seeing and pointing out and striding back and forth across, is the step/leap from where science seems clearly to reveal beautiful structure and order and brilliant functionality to the universe — dovetailing sweetly with faith — , and the point where I am honoring my neighbor (and not coveting her ass), going to church on Sundays, and putting money in the basket on the way past.

As an armchair thinker/theologian, I can't even pretend that these two can be closer than sharing the face of a coin, and a space in my brain. And they cannot be. By self-definition, science can't stand on that other side of the gap — but it is not abandoned there, either. On one side, the open, faithful mind sees the cosmic whirl of atom and galaxy, and is enthused; on the other side, the open, scientific mind sees genuine miracles that violate proven scientific law and principle, and accepts that there is mystery.

The Catholic Church itself uses that word, by the way. We profess that the bread and wine become the body/blood/soul/divinity of Jesus in a way science cannot recognize, and call it a Mystery. Ditto multiplication of loaves and fishes, raising from the dead, walking on unfrozen water, and loads more. (Every so often, and this is almost frighteningly mysterious, miracles are fully documented. How did the image get on the Shroud? What is the nature of the image of Guadalupe? And more than once, bread and wine have outwardly become flesh and blood.)

The too-rigid scientific mind will bang its head on the wall at these things; the faith-sustained scientific mind will drop its jaw in awe, and admit it just doesn't understand… and accept. An open mind of faith will love science; an open mind of science will be enriched with faith.

Maybe this helps a bit (still mulling, myself)…

Regards,

AgingChild

Spartacus was candid in his response:

——Original Message——

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:47 PM

OK, I think I understand you now. You are talking about making the leap of faith to become one of the faithful.

Well my friend, I'm afraid that's a leap I just can't make. I've pole vaulted across that chasm a couple of times, but each time the gap got wider (hey, you didn't for a minute think I was gonna say my POLE got shorter?!!!). I used to consider myself a Christian, but over the years I've found there is just too much about it I don't believe in. I don't believe the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God—and that's a pretty big hurdle right there. I believe there was a fellow named Jesus and I have a tremendous amount of respect for what he said, but I'm not sure I believe in his divinity. There were times (when I felt my faith slipping away) that I would pray to God to restore my faith, but it didn't happen.

One huge problem I have is the disconnect I see between the precepts of a faith and the behavior of the "faithful"—most of the time what I see sickens me. My personal experience has been that often the more a person claims they are "religious", the more effed up that person is, in their thoughts and actions—and believe me, I've seen some really scary "Christians". I used to try to console myself with "religion is man-made, but God is divine". I still believe that, but it doesn't make it any easier to vault the gap back into a pew. As I see it, religion has been an agent for far more bad than good in the world. I wholeheartedly agree with Lennon in his song "Imagine"—indeed, I look upon that song as a summation of Utopia.

I think there is a lot of good to be found in many different religions (except for Islam—I am really ignorant about it, and what little I know or think I know scares the hell out of me), though I really have not been able to embrace any one fully enough to say, "yes, this is it—the Truth". There was a time when I used to say "The Seeker" by The Who was my favorite song.

Yet through all the yearning and angst, I never doubted the existence of God—as I said previously, to me God is self evident—just look around you. When I discovered the thinkers of the Enlightenment, I really thought I had found the answer, but over time I became disillusioned with them too—they placed too much faith in the rationality of Man, and that clearly wasn't right! The writings of Thoreau and especially Emerson influenced me deeply, though in the end I can't fully accept everything he said either—though I believe it is obvious that God is immanent, I have a very hard time believing God is transcendent.

I get a very strong sense of the sacred when I'm contemplating the natural world. Some of the most moving experiences I've had have been when I was alone in the woods. Yes, I've actually hugged trees and spoken to them, and didn't feel at all self-conscious or silly doing it. I can lose myself in the veining of a leaf, the texture of lichen on a rock, the strata of a rocky outcrop, or the constantly changing shapes of clouds in the sky.

Do you remember a comedy skit from years back which began with the phrase, "Have you HEARD, the WORD, of GOD today?" That's all I remember of it, but I used to say to myself (still do actually), Yes, I heard it in the song of the birds in the trees, and in the wind blowing through the branches of those trees. I felt it in the warmth of the Sun, and in the caress of the breeze against my skin. I smelled it in the rich earth of the forest floor, and in the sharp tang of the winter air. I saw it in the many colors of the sky and clouds, and in the twinkling stars at night.

There is much in what Spartacus says that is deserving of response from me, and I acknowledged that first thing, before we both lightened up:

——Original Message——

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:52 PM

(MAN, have I got a pile of stuff backlogged for blog-work at home!)

I still say you're singing from my hymnal, brother — I just hit a few more notes than you do (or at least a few different ones). I do hope you've not concluded that my examination of this other dichotomy has been a) directed at you, and 3) aimed at force-fitting you with a halo and long lacy baptismal gown with alternating rows of ecru piping and chains of fleurs-de-lis and opaque panels for privacy, a low-cut neckline that will shock the congregation if you wear the gown backwards, and a small flock of cherubic kids to pick up the train and follow behind you, each saying glub in turn as s/he disappears under the water.

It's mostly me scratching my head (well, keyboards) out loud and peering into the canyon, wondering, "How DID I get over here?" But I gather you're okay with my bouncing ideas off you as I continue learning about the human soul by regularly holding my own up to the light, shaking my head in dismay, and putting it back in for yet another rinse cycle. I need the reality check, Bud, and for some odd reason you're relatively BS-free.

This latest email of yours, and just about all you've excreted this week, is deserving of more attention than I can give it at the moment. And earlier this afternoon I finally realized I'd still missed something elemental in the last couple days of blogging and emailing: the actual term "creationism"; duh. Reinjecting that pentasyllable should allow me to defog some of what I have up there already.

(P.S.: Your bit about pole-vaulting had me gigglingly picturing Homer on a skateboard, headed uncontrollably into Springfield Canyon: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Then rescued by helicopter (bonking his head on the cliff several times on the way up), loaded into ambulance, which wrecks, ejecting strapped-down and gurneyed Homer back into canyon: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!) AgingChild

It's amazing I get work done some days. Or that Spartacus does. Here's his next email:

——Original Message——

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 4:08 PM

"…for some odd reason you're relatively BS-free."

Uh, thanks for the compliment? I try to be BS free, but sometimes maybe some BS creeps in when I'm afraid of offending. I'm sorry for dumping so much on you—I guess it's because I've been inspired to write, and felt that if I didn't get it down it would be lost in the miasmic recesses of my brain. I certainly don't expect you to drop everything to reply ASAP. I need time for this stuff to percolate and sedimentate (?) too.

"…the actual term "creationism"; duh. Reinjecting that pentasyllable should allow me to defog some of what I have up there already."

Yeah, I've lost sight of some key terms and concepts during this wide ranging hunt and peck festival too.

His email had led off with:

"…aimed at force-fitting you with a halo and long lacy baptismal gown with alternating rows of ecru piping and chains of fleurs-de-lis and opaque panels for privacy, a low-cut neckline that will shock the congregation if you wear the gown backwards, and a small flock of cherubic kids to pick up the train and follow behind you, each saying glub in turn as s/he disappears under the water."

Hmmmm…sounds like you've given this more than a little thought—LOL! Should I grow my hair out so it can be in curls too?

I was about to leave for the day when I read the above; I slapped a hand over my mouth (too late) and tapped out one more note:

——Original Message——

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 4:37 PM

"hair… in curls":

GOL; thanks for a great suppressed guffaw!