musings at the intersection of science, art, and religion
"Except for the point, the still point, there would be no dance, and there is only the dance." ~ T.S. Eliot in "Burnt Norton"
Sunday, April 21, 2013
In light of our recent
discussions on ecology and theology, we wanted to further explore the example
of the Keystone Pipeline. Please watch the follow news clip, and consider the
following discussion questions.
2. Do you believe its
implementation is for the common good?
3. Do you think the
Pipeline should be allowed to be built?
4. Which do you think
is the more significant outcome, the potential environment ramifications, or
the ability to provide cheaper oil for citizens, and lessening our dependence
on the Middle East?
5. Do you think the
construction of the Pipeline falls in line with Catholic Doctrine?
Please read the
following article concerning Pope Francis and the environment and consider the
following discussion question.
6. Moving forward, how
do you think Pope Francis will play a role in environment issues such as this?
Monday, April 8, 2013
In our class discussion on the New Atheist movement, we have seen polarized views spanning from the "delusions of grandeur" put forth by Richard Dawkins to the Karen Armstrong's opinion that the New Atheist movement is based on "poor Theology," or the lack of religious education.
In this video, we see the opinion of another New Atheist, Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, who primarily focuses on questions of cosmology, evolution and galactic astronomy. (You might recognize his face from the video a few weeks ago- "Reflecting on Battlestar Galactica!") However, in this particular video, we see him commenting on the relationship between religion and science.
How does DeGrasse Tyson's argument correlate with the arguments of New Atheist thinkers? How does it depart?
Do you think his idea is idea is correct that "we would've never left the cave" without scientists questioning religion?
Dr. Andrew Newberg is the author of
"Principles of Neurotheology," and he is the director of research at
the Myrna Brind Center of Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University
Hospital and Medical College.He
studies the relationship between the brain and religious experience. In his
research, he scanned people’s brains while they are meditating or praying and
then he compared what was going on in their brains at that point to what is
happening in their brain when they're at rest. He approached that by using SPECT imaging techniquethat requires putting in a small
intravenous catheter in a mediator’s arm. During meditation, he infuses a small
amount of radioactive material in order to process images of the brain while
meditating. Dr.Newberg found that people who engage in religious and spiritualpractices have more active areas in
their brains. He also found that during meditation “blood flow increase in the
frontal cortex, the place where we are focusing on problems, and decrease in
other areas of the brain”. These changes “help to lower the level of anxiety
and depression and make us feel better”. They also help us to stay calm even
after the meditation.
What do you think of his finding?
For people who meditate or engage in religious practices have you experience
the same outcome (feeling calm, positive or energetic after mediating) ?
Sunday, March 10, 2013
We spent last class watching Creation, a film depicting the life of Charles Darwin. One very important aspect of the film was Darwin’s struggle to reconcile science with religion. He faced push-back from the church, his friends, and his devout wife. These conflicts are minor when compared to his own internal struggle as a man of faith. The following scene between Darwin (Paul Bettany) and his wife (Jennifer Connelly) illuminates that very struggle.
The readings that were assigned to us before break discuss the idea that evolution does not contradict the biblical idea of creationism, but rather enforces it in many ways. Paley and Mivart go to great lengths to argue that evolution can be viewed as a mechanism of divine creation.
Which of these teachings (creationism or evolution) has been reinforced most in your schooling, home life, and social life? Have the readings persuaded you to believe that evolution and creationism can be reconciled? Why or why not?
About one year after being assigned to watch the pilot movie
of Battlestar Galactica, I’ve finally finished the entire series. That, my friends, was a fun ride.
I’m
a tough critic – I always have been. It takes a lot to impress me, but even
less for me to deride a series or movie’s writers and their scripts as inept
or, frankly, stupid. Season One is remarkable in so many ways. But the second season of BSG heralds a rapid decline in
quality writing. By the third season, the scripts have become abysmal; the plot is convoluted, directionless, and confusing. Characters lose their … well,
character … and the cylons stop being terrifying/awe-inspiring and became
too human (not in a positive, constructive, way that develops depth - but in a
way that indicats the writers were desperately trying to add melodrama where
none belongs).
Despite
it all, I powered through the weaker episodes and emerged in the fourth and
final season with renewed vigor. The writing improves - characters solidify
again, the plot begins to move in a single direction, and the desperate need to know
and understand the cylons reemerged in my stomach.
When
the credits finally rolled on the last episode, I was heartbroken. I really
wished it wasn’t over.
What makes the fourth season so extraordinary is the script’s return to what makes
the first season extraordinary.
Questions like, “Are you alive?” become a driving theme again. Theological
debates rage (and not superficially, as they do in seasons 2 and
3). Gaius Baltar asks a question that pierces to the heart of the discussions
on faith – “What if God doesn’t create good or evil? What if He just creates?” And
always the idea of immortality… and what it means to be human.
I
won’t talk too much more – I know that readers of this blog are still being
exposed to BSG, and I don’t want to spoil anything. But below are two videos -
similar in content but starkly different in tone – that help describe the
(eventual) main antagonist’s motivations. And why he simply refuses to believe
in God. One is, obviously, from the fourth season, and the other is a lecture
being given by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
“I don’t want to be human!”
I don't want to provide any spoilers here, so I'm avoiding discussion on some of the things I'd love to talk about ("Are the cylons human," anyone?) - but based on the two videos above, I pose two questions - how intelligent is intelligent design? What can we extrapolate from our deeply flawed physical design?
In his book "Religion and Science", Ian Barbour states four possible relationships between "Religion" and "Science" -which we have identified and defined extensively in our coursework and online discussions. In his brief accounts of the life, discoveries, and struggles of Galileo Galilee, Barbour touches on these four possibilities again, outside his primary order of definitions, by referencing original discourses between the 16th century "father of modern science", the scientific community of his time, and religious leadership, namely of the Catholic Church. Of the four relationships between science and religion, Barbour offers evidence which narrows "The Galileo Affair" to a case of "Independence" and/or "Potential Conflict" (14). Intent is the reason for the case of the former - the nature and right method of Science aims at answering the mechanical questions of "How?" while the nature and right theological interpretation of Religion i.e. Scripture aims at discovering a Divine purpose or "Why?" Literalism is the source for the later case - Scripture uses empirical language and symbols which do not translate as accurate according to modern Scientific standards. While Barbour categorizes Galileo's "Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems" as an example of conflict due to its negative reception Catholic leadership in 1632, the content of the piece suggests that Galileo's intention was not conflict as it is commonly characterized. Rather, Galileo's allegorical work suggests what Barbour defines as the conveniently-named relationship "Dialogue" with science and religion acknowledging truth as a product of their distinct methods and common goals. Rather than seeking conflict as popular accounts depict, perhaps Galileo was searching for a mutually agreeable compromise. While his lack of study in theological practice of science does not lend itself to Barbour's definition of harmony between Science and Religion i.e. integration, Galileo's work and actions seem to accommodate a separate and supplementary relationship between Science and Religion.
Given what else we've read in class, take a minute to check out this clip from the movie "Angels and Demons" where the Camerlengo Patrick addresses the Cardinals in conclave about the actions of the Illuminati.
A friend posted this to my Facebook page the other day. It made me think about our conversation about the anthropomorphism of God, which was such a great conversation in class the other day. So, I thought I would post this for you guys. Several of you asked if we could take that conversation up again. There will be space for it throughout the semester, but we can begin class on Tuesday talking about this video in order to have another place to discuss it.
