Wednesday, February 26, 2014

The Most Common Question (Guest Blog Post)

What side are you on science or faith? Thats the most common comment weve heard when talking to people about our churchs involvement in Scientists in Congregations. There appears to be a general belief from the public that science and faith are at odds with one other. Overwhelming, weve found that once someone hears that were discussing science and faith together as a both/and proposition, the response is always something like Its about time or Ive always thought so but was afraid to say it. Our goal has not been to compartmentalize science apart from faith, or faith apart from science, but to integrate them together. Weve discovered that theres an incredible interest in the discussion--both from scientists and non-scientists alike.

Guest Post By: Ruth Wahl
United Presbyterian Church

Randolph, NY


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. As a scientist, I agree with integration.
    But is it not very likely that, with true integration, BOTH sides are going to be changed? It is extremely unlikely to be accommodation only on one side.
    In that case, is the scientific community going to accept changes arising from considerations of spirituality and religion? Or are they going to fight back?

    1. I think you're right--the conversation between scientists and theologians tends to go in one direction. But there have been some notable exceptions. For example, the physicist and theologian Robert John Russell has just published a very thoughtful book that uses Pannenberg's theology to make some claims about the proper interpretation of relativity.
      Greg Cootsona

    2. Do you think it might be possible that religious people learn something about minds or spirituality or about the operations of God in the world, and that then science has to be adjusted to take into account the new kind of observations and evidence then produced?
      Or are many scientists going to fight back, and find a million-and-one reasons why the observations and evidence are "not compelling"?
      (This is going beyond interpretation of science, and now dealing more directly with causes in the world!)