Rod’s Comments (group member since Apr 17, 2014)

Rod’s comments from the Exploring the Gap between Science and Religion group.

There are many dimensions to the gap between science and religion. The definitions of the terms can be one of them. But just as science changes with new discoveries, perhaps the definitions should be flexible enough to change, too. Just as a believer grows in their understanding, perhaps the definitions in religion or spirituality can grow toward a greater Truth, too.

It's a common malady in human affairs to have people disagree because only their definitions are in conflict.

Moss's British/American Language Dictionary gives a classic example of this.

Norman Moss (no photo)

In it, he tells of a meeting between British and American diplomats. One argument rages for quite some time over the idea of whether to "table" a subject of discussion. To their dismay, they discovered that they were all in agreement, only separated by a common language with differing definitions. British definition says to place on the "main" table to actively discuss the topic. American definition says to place on the "side" table for a later discussion. Oops!

But perhaps the biggest gap between any two topics is Ego. Ego is selfishness. Ego always wants to be "first" and frequently separate from others -- "I'm right and you're wrong."

Jesus described this as "first" (the hunger to be); the antidote as "last" (acceptance of being; humility).

I learned a long time ago that when a conflict persists, there is an active lie that is keeping it in place. I tend to believe this. I've seen it too many times. Could someone want to be dividing us on such issues? Divide and conquer? The Corporate Party Mainstream Media seems quite adept at establishing definitions of polarization.

What's interesting is that such polarization is the blood and bone of Ego -- the dichotomies of good-evil, right-wrong, generous-selfish and more. The "good" of this world can also be evil, because Ego likes to be seen as good for selfishness's sake.

The religious frequently have egos to protect their religious dogma. But the scientists also have egos to protect their scientific dogma. Yes, scientific dogma does exist. Just look up the "Clovis First" dogma of last century. Scientists were ridiculed if they dug below the Clovis horizon. And any self-respecting (egotistical) scientist will shy away from the modern, secular blasphemy of "Atlantis" despite mounting evidence in its support.

Ego has a tendency to blind its owner. Ego is the attitude that one already knows and has no need of investigation. Thus we get Fundamentalists and atheistic scientists ridiculing those who do not see things their way. Ego prevails. The joy of discovery suffers.

James Gleick, warned us about such things. He once wrote, "Shallow ideas can be assimilated; ideas that require people to reorganize their picture of the world provoke hostility."

James Gleick

The first time I ran into this behavior, I couldn't believe it. Grown men! Scientists! Acting like spoiled brats. Incredible.

It seems more and more to me that the mission of Jesus was to rescue us from our Egos. This "false self" seems to be a spiritual blindfold. It stops our investigation and turns already tainted "skepticism" into unsupported dismissiveness or even self-indulgent ridicule.

Science and religion share a great deal. Both hunger for Truth, even if only a "relative" truth. And I'm defining "religion" as the larger force of spirituality for the sake of learning and spiritual awakening.

But even in their differences, science and religion complement each other. Science studies the products of God's creation while spirituality (the core of religion) studies the sources of creation.

Science deals with the realm of continuity (for the most part, though it does touch on discontinuities in subjects like calculus). Religion deals with the realm of discontinuities (though it does touch on continuities in subjects like manifestation of a creation or answered prayers).

Even the tools of each can be used in their complementary fields. The logic and methodical nature of science can be used in investigating religion. Kabbalah does this to a degree. And the spiritual activity of inspiration has long been a mainstay in science. Einstein put inspiration above logic. Understanding why can be quite instructive.

To the biblical literalist, such "compromises" may seem like blasphemy. But taking the Bible entirely literally is, in itself a form of blasphemy, for it is the method of laziness. Christ said that the path to salvation is narrow and difficult, not broad and easy.