Like many others these days, I listen to a selection of podcasts. One of my regulars by NPR is titled Hidden Brain by Shankar Vedantam. Recently he had an episode titled Creating God and featured an evolutionary scientist named Azim Shariff. In essence, the ideas the guest shared pointed to an evolutionary need in early human development for creating community. The result, says Shariff, was the invention of religion, the invention of God. Creating a belief system, goes the argument, helped small groups form a common ethos and a method of bonding. Toward the end of the episode Shariff affirmed he is an atheist. Here is the description of the episode on the Hidden Brain website:
If you've taken part in a religious service, have you ever stopped to think about how it all came to be? How did people become believers? Where did the rituals come from? And most of all, what purpose does it all serve? This week, we explore these questions with psychologist Azim Shariff, who argues that we can think of religion from a Darwinian perspective, as an innovation that helped human societies to survive and flourish.
https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain
I have made an argument many times about science and faith, but after listening to the podcast I feel a need to make it again. I firmly believe that human intellect has limits, and the amount of data available to human kind is limited as well. A limited reasoning ability coupled with a limited amount of information often leads to only a partial, or sometimes completely inaccurate, understanding of truth.
A few days after listening to the podcast I listened to a Ted Radio Hour that was focused on this issue of what science knows about truth. The episode is titled The Spirit of Inquiry. In particular, a recurring theme in the episode was about the trap of arrogance scientists often fall into by believing the conclusions science draws. Multiple presenters, scientists not religionists, spoke about how science really doesn’t prove anything, but gives us a reasonable framework to try to understand the world around us, and the worlds in the cosmos. Here is the description of the episode on the TED Radio Hour website:
The force behind scientific progress is the simple act of asking questions. This episode, TED speakers explore how a deeper and more humble style of inquiry may help achieve the next big breakthrough.
https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/archive
There is a danger in this approach as well. A follower of this line of thought can come to the conclusion that truth is not really knowable. In his epistle to Timothy, the apostle Paul describes people in the last days. One way he describes them (us?) is in 2 Timothy 3
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
When atheistic scientists remove the possibility of the existence of God, and accept completely the ideas of evolution, I can understand how they, like Azim Shariff, come to the conclusions they do. That said, if you assume one possibility should be completely ruled out (the actual existence of God for example), and you assume another possibility as the only description of reality, then how can someone really put stock in such a one-sided perspective? Isn’t that the same argument such scientists use to discredit those who claim a belief in God?
Personally I put little hope in any version of truth that relies only on the logic arguments of human kind, be they scientific or religious. By my own experience through prayer, and seeing results in the lives of those who choose to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, I find reason to view any idea through the lens of how it does or does not align with truth revealed through ancient and modern prophets. Coming to know truth requires more than thought. The Savior puts it this way in John 7
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
For me, faith is stronger than belief. Believing in something does not make it true, nor does belief imply action. Faith is doing His will (taking action). Doing His will increases faith. As faith increases, so does understanding. As understanding increases, a person comes closer to truth. As the scripture notes, doing His will discloses truth. Stated in the negative, if the doctrine is not from God, is not true, then doing the act will reveal to the doer it’s untruth, and faith does not increase.
I’m just fine that many do not accept my perspective. I’m also aware that when considering religion there is a great deal of variation and contradiction among belief systems. I wonder, though, how that is any different than the variation and contradiction among various scientific camps. Scientific evidence is just that, evidence. Scientific theory is just that, theory. So much of what gets represented as "fact" later proves not factual. Religions have come and gone throughout human history. So too have scientific theories.
If you've taken part in a religious service, have you ever stopped to think about how it all came to be? How did people become believers? Where did the rituals come from? And most of all, what purpose does it all serve? This week, we explore these questions with psychologist Azim Shariff, who argues that we can think of religion from a Darwinian perspective, as an innovation that helped human societies to survive and flourish.
https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain
I have made an argument many times about science and faith, but after listening to the podcast I feel a need to make it again. I firmly believe that human intellect has limits, and the amount of data available to human kind is limited as well. A limited reasoning ability coupled with a limited amount of information often leads to only a partial, or sometimes completely inaccurate, understanding of truth.
A few days after listening to the podcast I listened to a Ted Radio Hour that was focused on this issue of what science knows about truth. The episode is titled The Spirit of Inquiry. In particular, a recurring theme in the episode was about the trap of arrogance scientists often fall into by believing the conclusions science draws. Multiple presenters, scientists not religionists, spoke about how science really doesn’t prove anything, but gives us a reasonable framework to try to understand the world around us, and the worlds in the cosmos. Here is the description of the episode on the TED Radio Hour website:
The force behind scientific progress is the simple act of asking questions. This episode, TED speakers explore how a deeper and more humble style of inquiry may help achieve the next big breakthrough.
https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/archive
There is a danger in this approach as well. A follower of this line of thought can come to the conclusion that truth is not really knowable. In his epistle to Timothy, the apostle Paul describes people in the last days. One way he describes them (us?) is in 2 Timothy 3
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
When atheistic scientists remove the possibility of the existence of God, and accept completely the ideas of evolution, I can understand how they, like Azim Shariff, come to the conclusions they do. That said, if you assume one possibility should be completely ruled out (the actual existence of God for example), and you assume another possibility as the only description of reality, then how can someone really put stock in such a one-sided perspective? Isn’t that the same argument such scientists use to discredit those who claim a belief in God?
Personally I put little hope in any version of truth that relies only on the logic arguments of human kind, be they scientific or religious. By my own experience through prayer, and seeing results in the lives of those who choose to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, I find reason to view any idea through the lens of how it does or does not align with truth revealed through ancient and modern prophets. Coming to know truth requires more than thought. The Savior puts it this way in John 7
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
For me, faith is stronger than belief. Believing in something does not make it true, nor does belief imply action. Faith is doing His will (taking action). Doing His will increases faith. As faith increases, so does understanding. As understanding increases, a person comes closer to truth. As the scripture notes, doing His will discloses truth. Stated in the negative, if the doctrine is not from God, is not true, then doing the act will reveal to the doer it’s untruth, and faith does not increase.
I’m just fine that many do not accept my perspective. I’m also aware that when considering religion there is a great deal of variation and contradiction among belief systems. I wonder, though, how that is any different than the variation and contradiction among various scientific camps. Scientific evidence is just that, evidence. Scientific theory is just that, theory. So much of what gets represented as "fact" later proves not factual. Religions have come and gone throughout human history. So too have scientific theories.
RSS Feed