Monday 25 April 2011

Of Science and Religion


Depiction of Jesus Christ on stained glass. Image by Toby Hudson

While enjoying the Easter holidays I came across this article in the New Statesman where the author, Andrew Zak Williams, interviewed a variety of leading public figures and scientists on their views on Christian faith and their reasons for believing. The responses are diverse as they are fascinating - Religious leaders James Jones and Richard Chartres describe the Christian faith as unquestionable. Others such as the barrister Cherie Blair, journalist Jeremy Vine and former Conservative minister Jonathan Aitken see religion as natural and a form of solace, something that cannot be explained. The British author Peter Hitchens and Professor of Psychology David Myers find that faith provides a guide and a meaning to life, that it holds the key to the many questions of the universe and of our existence.

It is perceived that the scientist's view is a little more divorced than those expressed and in this article it shows - Quantum Physicist Paul Davies prefers "useful concepts" than belief; that the word 'God' is undefined and idea of a spiritual entity capable of thought and control is unacceptable. Theoretical physicist Peter Richmond goes further, stating that although the teachings of the Bible are still relevant to this day, the scriptures should not be taken literally. However, the likes of Professor of biology Kenneth Miller, astrophysicist Hugh Ross and Professor of climate change Mike Hulme confirm a personal belief in the Bible and in God; a belief that stems from, surprisingly, scientific findings, scientific rationality and scientific values.

There is a concept perpetuated in the UK media that science is very much against religion - that it is God versus Nature; creationism versus evolution. However, from these short interviews it can be seen that the lines are blurred - that there are well respected and successful scientists who openly embrace religion and the concept that scientific methodology is not appropriate to explain or define faith.

Source: New Statesman

No comments:

Post a Comment