Science and Religion - A Unitarian Universalist Perspective (priest, ritual)

[Runt]

Science clearly informs answers. In the case of your example, science has provided abundant evidence that homosexuality is natural - in our species as well as others.

But it does not tell us whether or not it is RIGHT live according to these natural (some would say "baser") natures. For example, in some species it is "natural" for creatures to eat one another. Look at black widows. If we say that Science has determined that "behavior occuring in nature" constitutes "natural behavior" constitutes "moral behavior", then we must say that Science, observing that cannabolism occurs in nature and thus is natural, has told us that we ought to eat one another because it is RIGHT.

So, we can use Science to argue that something occuring in nature is therefore natural in humans. But that is as far as we can go with Science. The final answers we seek--whether or not something is "right" and therefore should be done--cannot be provided by Science. They must be found elsewhere.

Also, to suggest that religion, as opposed to science, provides answers, is dangerous territory indeed. Current progressive church attitudes towards homosexuality, where they exist, are far more due to scientific and civil libertarian pressure on our culture than the other way around.

I agree that religions can arrive at "bad" conclusions. But religions are organizations of humans who feel similarly about certain issues, and humans CAN come to "bad" conclusions. If we abolished religion completely, waited long enough so that the IDEA of religion and the inclination towards it no longer existed in society, and then asked these kinds of questions again, you would see a shift back towards religous-like organizations as people with similar opinions band together to use their numbers to influence policy related to that opinion. Thus, religion is no less valid a way of seeking answers than individual humans (unless someone who has no opinion just "goes along" with what their religion says without qualifying their religion's point of view--that is just scary), and no less valid than Science in seeking answers (so long as it does not seek to answer questions that are the focus of Science) because, ultimately, subjective hypotheses really cannot be tested and therefore ANYONE'S opinion is valid, and any opinion is impossible to come by through Science. How do you prove, OBJECTIVELY, that something is "moral", or "important", or "high quality"? You can't do it... its very importance, morality, and quality is centered around its relation to YOU, or something of interest to you, and therefore is not objective.

Furthermore, if you insist on pointing to religion as the source of answers, you must tell us how religion comes to these answers. Is it through the application of reason or revelation?

Tough question. Subjective issues can only be examined with reason up to a certain point, because reason is OBJECTIVE. For example, how do you use reason to argue that some particular object, say a statue, is beautiful? You don't. You can point out, using reason, that such and such elements are considered to constitute aethetic appeal, and that the statue contains those elements, but that does not prove, reasonably or objectively, that the statue is beautiful. It only proves that society has opinions about beauty, and that those opinions about beauty coorespond to what you see in the statue.

So, using reason, you gather all the facts you can. Then, you abandon reason, form subjective opinions about each fact (is it "good" or "evil"? Is it "important" or "unimportant"? Does it constitute "good quality" or "poor quality"?), and using those subjective opinions about your facts, come to a completely subjective answer to your question.

So subjective answers are just that--subjective. Quite frankly, I don't know HOW we really qualify them, except socially ("others think that statue is beautiful too, so it is beautiful!") or intuitively ("I feel in my gut that that statue is beautiful, so it is beautiful"). Actually, there IS another way we can qualify them, but it is a cheater's method, a lie. You suggested it-- the claim that you came to your conclusion through divine revelation. "God says that statue is beautiful, so it is beautiful". In truth, there is no such thing as revelation. It is simply a lie religions use to give more authority to their subjective opinions.

So, to directly answer your question, how does religion come up with these answers? Ultimately, it does not. People come up with these answers. People sharing similar opinions band together in an organization to be able to wield more influence. Some of these organizations become religions. It may appear that the religion gives the answers, but it is actually the PEOPLE in the religion giving the answers. (Or, ideally, it should be. I think far too often it is not. Young children raised in a religion to believe the teachings of the religion without testing them for themselves, in which they are blindly accepting conclusions they have NOT reached on their own-- this is a problem.)

So you should be asking, "How do PEOPLE come up with these answers? Is it through the application of reason or revelation?" My answer is neither. Reason can only be used up to a certain point to qualify a subjective opinion, and revelation can only be used AFTER a certain point (and is a lie, at that). The only way I can think of to answer a subjective question is through "herd instinct" (conforming to the opinions of society) or intuition ("feeling it in yourself").

The question now, is whether or not subjective reality (including but not limited to the importance of human life, the existence of true love, the morality of being kind, the immorality of being unkind, and the existance of beauty) is really REAL, whether or not these subjective questions really HAVE answers, and whether or not we should look at subjective issues and seek answers.

But one can likewise join the Ethical Society and make a difference. Clearly, making a difference does not require belief in Diety or the supernatural.

True, one can join an Ethical Society. But some religions ARE like Ethical Societies. UUism is one of them-- ask a UU minister whether or not there is a God or an afterlife, and they will tell you that these questions are up to the individual and that they have no authority to answer them. They will also tell you that UUs are more focused on THIS life than on the next... which essentially turns UUism into an ethical society. Furthermore, whether or not a deity exists, it IS a symbol of something that DOES exist in reality-- the best and worst of human nature, a reflection of the creative and destructive powers inherent in the universe itself, etc. Just as literature can be looked at as something that contains universal symbols of use to the average human, so can religion. Not everyone takes the characters and plots of religion seriously-- most UUs look at them as SYMBOLS of human life and nature, not as literal truths.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Runt

True, one can join an Ethical Society. But some religions ARE like Ethical Societies. UUism is one of them-- ask a UU minister whether or not there is a God or an afterlife, and they will tell you that these questions are up to the individual and that they have no authority to answer them.

They may tell me that, but you have no idea how little respect I hold for such responses.

That said, I very much appreciate what you wrote - its content, the thoughtfulness, and the effort. As a member of both the Society for Humanistic Judaism and the American Humanist Association, I suspect that we hold a good deal in common, so permit me to suggest a couple of things.

First, on the question of morality, I'd recommend reading Edward O. Wilson's The Biological Basis of Morality.

Second, on the relationship between science and religion, I think it is both accurate and helpful to reclaim the term "religion" from the theist/supernaturalist. The American Geographer Yi Fu Tuan once wrote

All human beings are religious if religion is broadly defined as the impulse for coherence and meaning

- "Humanistic Geography". Annals of the Association of American Geographers Vol. 66, No. 2: 266-276, pg. 271-272 -- emphasis added)

So defined, religion and science cease to be some division of labor. Rather, religion re-emerges as an impulse for cohesion informed by naturalism.

[Runt]

That said, I very much appreciate what you wrote - its content, the thoughtfulness, and the effort.

Thank you!

First, on the question of morality, I'd recommend reading Edward O. Wilson's The Biological Basis of Morality.

Hmm, sounds interesting. I'll take a look at it! Heh, as soon as I pay the "outstanding fees" on my library card...

So defined, religion and science cease to be some division of labor. Rather, religion re-emerges as an impulse for cohesion informed by naturalism.

That's a good way to look at it! I like it.

They may tell me that, but you have no idea how little respect I hold for such responses.

Why do you hold so little respect for such responses? Is there something wrong with a religion choosing to focus on living THIS life meaningfully rather than focusing on the attainment of some unknowable/imaginary afterlife through the pleasing of some God we don't even know for sure exists (and who, if "he" does exist, hasn't deigned to give us any indication that he is even active in the world and therefore probably doesn't care about whether or not we worship him)?

That is why ministers would tell you that questions of God and afterlife are left up to the individual to answer; these questions are ultimately less important in UUism than ones like, "How do we live responsibly? How do we make the least negative impact on our planet? How do we attain fulfillment?"

Many UUs are agnostic or flat out atheist (raises hand), and we have a huge population of humanists. This is probably WHY the focus is more on these types of questions than on the nature of God, the avoidance of Hell, and the attainment of Heaven. They come to church to talk about how to live a fulfilling life, and to get involved in programs that will help them make a positive impact on the world. Not how to prevent some imaginary boogie man from "getting them".

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Runt

Hmm, sounds interesting. I'll take a look at it! Heh, as soon as I pay the "outstanding fees" on my library card...

The link is to an online article for which no library card is needed.


[quote=Runt]

Originally Posted by Runt

... ask a UU minister whether or not there is a God or an afterlife, and they will tell you that these questions are up to the individual and that they have no authority to answer them.

Why do you hold so little respect for such responses?

Because it intentionally refuses to answer the question asked, a tactic that I find disingenuous. I would much prefer the UU minister who said: "UU is open to theists and nontheists alike, but I believe [ ... ] for the following reasons."

Originally Posted by Runt

Is there something wrong with a religion choosing to focus on living THIS life meaningfully rather than focusing on the attainment of some unknowable/imaginary afterlife through the pleasing of some God we don't even know for sure exists ...?

No, especially if the question is: "What should I focus on?"

Originally Posted by Runt

Many UUs are agnostic or flat out atheist (raises hand), and we have a huge population of humanists. This is probably WHY the focus is more on these types of questions than on the nature of God, ...

First of all, there is no "hugh population of humanists". Secondly, the question, in the final analysis, is not one of focus. You don't address the impulse for meaning without addressing the issue of teleology. Don't ask, don't tell, seems an insufficient foundation for a naturalistic religion.

[Runt]

The link is to an online article for which no library card is needed.

Well, that certainly makes things easier.

Because it intentionally refuses to answer the question asked, a tactic that I find disingenuous. I would much prefer the UU minister who said: "UU is open to theists and nontheists alike, but I believe [ ... ] for the following reasons."

Ah, I think I understand now. If you ask a minister what IS the reality about God and the afterlife, and you will get the response you suggested. A UU minister will tell you what they personally believe, and why, but not what IS the reality of these matters as ministers of other religions will do. They will tell you their personal beliefs, but they will also point out that they are just that, beliefs, and that they do not claim they beliefs are the one TRUTH, but just an opinion of it. I personally like that; I wouldn't go to church if the minister told me what was what about a subject that nobody can really know about (though everybody has opinions). I prefer advice about how to be happy in life, how to minimize the negative effects of my presence on the planet (i.e. pollution, preserving natural resources, etc), and how to find strength in difficult situations WITHOUT turning to some imaginary father figure in the sky.

First of all, there is no "hugh population of humanists".

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Yes, the UU faith has a lot of Humanists. Overall there may not be a huge population of Humanists, but there is within the UU church. At least, there are a lot of UUs who claim that label. Many UU teachings are Humanist in nature. Humanism is one of the bigger, more recent roots of UUsim; it is what helped shift the focus from metaphysics to life, and what has attracted so many atheists and agnostics.

Secondly, the question, in the final analysis, is not one of focus. You don't address the impulse for meaning without addressing the issue of teleology. Don't ask, don't tell, seems an insufficient foundation for a naturalistic religion.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying... what is telology (no dictionary at my sister's house, which is where I am). And what makes you think the UU faith has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy? That certainly isn't true. We have a saying in the UU faith. "UUs are not devoted to one Truth, but to the process of discovering truth." This leads to a lot of intellectual discourse (much like what is on this site) as well as a lot of interaction with one another as we strive to make a positive impact on the world. We ask one another what we believe to be the Truth about God and the afterlife (we actually have groups focused on such discussions), but this does not mean that the UU faith is pushing any particular belief over others. It is an organization of mutual exploration, and not of devotion to any particular Truth.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Runt

Well, that certainly makes things easier.

I do what I can ...

Originally Posted by Runt

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Yes, the UU faith has a lot of Humanists.

It was sarcasm - sorry.

Originally Posted by Runt

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying... what is telology (no dictionary at my sister's house, which is where I am).

Teleology presumes that processes are purposeful. It suggests that 'why' questions are meaningful.

Originally Posted by Runt

And what makes you think the UU faith has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy? That certainly isn't true. We have a saying in the UU faith. "UUs are not devoted to one Truth, but to the process of discovering truth." This leads to a lot of intellectual discourse (much like what is on this site) as well as a lot of interaction with one another as we strive to make a positive impact on the world. We ask one another what we believe to be the Truth about God and the afterlife (we actually have groups focused on such discussions), but this does not mean that the UU faith is pushing any particular belief over others. It is an organization of mutual exploration, and not of devotion to any particular Truth.

Gosh, we sure wouldn't want to "push" (your choice of words is really informative) evolution over creationism or naturalism over supernaturalism - we'll simply consign these questions to never-ending discussion groups while basing ourself firmly on cognitive disconnect. (Sorry, more sarcasm.)

I'm not a big fan of relativism. Tell me (if you know), what is the UU position on the Exodus and the Documentary Hypothesis?