Science and Religion: Not Mutually Exclusive

So, I read some internet forums. While I realize that the anonymity and assurance of “privacy” encourage relatively abnormal behavior, I am always impressed by the hatred of religion that they tend to express in some internet forums. They blame and yell at the “religious-conservative-fear-mongers” for most of the woes and problems of the world. It always confuses me. I only read them to try to get more of an understanding for why there is such a disgust of religion and people who believe in God. They choose to say that they are uneducated and foolish, people who choose the “easy way out”, believing that there is a God and trying to find a meaning in this life. They frequently say that religious people do not believe in science, do not understand politics, and are pretty much just ignorant people. I have never understood this, and I want to attempt to talk briefly about it in the post.

First of all, science and religion do not hate each other. While some people would have you believe that religion and science do not get a long that is simply not a fact. In fact, I find that science actually confirms and supports my faith and helps me to know more and feel better about the beliefs that I have. Science, by discovering these new innovations, these new inventions, and new theories that are espoused every day help to confirm and grow my faith. From the discovery of the atom, to the foundations of, gasp, evolution, I feel that lots of these discoveries have helped me to confirm my faith and reaffirm to me that there is a pattern in the world and in life. My faith does not force me to believe that everything about evolution is a lie. We have seen evolution. It acts on this world. Don’t get me wrong, in no way to I think that I evolved from a monkey. However, I have no doubt that humans have evolved to be better humans, and that many other creatures have likewise done so.

Other complaints I hear are involved with miracles. While some would purport that miracles do not exist because science cannot explain them, I would simply counter that we do not have the science to explain them. Our science has not reached its pinnacle. We do not know everything about the interaction of certain elements of our universe. What if miracles were simply operating on scientific principles which we do not yet understand? Is that so out of the question? Have we grown so arrogant as to assume that we have discovered all that there is to discover?

Second of all, science is never “sure” about anything. That is the whole principle behind a theory. The definition of theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena” (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory ). I think the key is that it is “well substantiated”. Theories have been shown to be true, using the limited knowledge and resources that we might have available to us. However, theories are being changed and disproven every day in our new scientific reality. Not too long ago, we were sure that the atom was the smallest particle. Hundreds of years ago, scientists were sure that the world was flat. These were accepted scientific facts. Yet, look what we know today. Imagine, just imagine, what we’ll know tomorrow. (UPDATED: When I wrote this line, I remembered that it was from something that I had read or seen. Bryan reminded me that I adapted this last sentence or two from Men in Black.)

Third, and finally, I really detest the claims that those who are religious simply “take the easy way out”. There seems to be this thought that by being religious, and believing in God, that we (those who have faith) just take the easy way out justify it with God or the devil. I do not know a single religious person who does this. I do not discourage scientific exploration, nor dissuade them from trying to understand our natural world. I would argue, actually, that the reverse is true of those who “take the easy way out”. I would argue that it is 10x easier to only believe in that which you can see. To believe that nothing governs our behavior. To believe that you can do whatever you want and there is nothing else to worry about. In my estimation, believing in a God, pushing to do what is good in His sight, and believing not only in that which can be seen, but in that which cannot be seen is much more challenging than the opposite.

I am not trying to position myself as elitist, or correct. I’m just trying to explain some of my feelings on this issue. Being religious is not easy. It’s hard. Some may find that it is not for them and I will not begrudge them this. Everyone is free to make their own choices. I would just ask that before they choose to bash my choices and my opinions, that they make sure that they understand my side of the argument.

Science and religion do not hate each other. Those who would have you believe this are either as uneducated as they claim the others to be, or simply do not understand.

Leave your message after the break.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes - Watchmen

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes (Who Watches the Watchmen?) is the final closing quote in the massive 12-issue compendium that is Watchmen. Since so much has been written regarding this graphic novel on the intrawebz already, I'll just quote a quick synopsis:

It tells the story of a group of past and presentsuperheroes and the events surrounding the mysterious murder of one of their own. Watchmen depicts superheroes as real people who must confront ethical and personal issues, who struggle with neuroses and failings, and who - with one notable exception - lack anything recognizable as super powers. Watchmen's deconstruction of the conventional superhero archetype, combined with its innovative adaptation of cinematic techniques and heavy use of symbolism, multi-layered dialogue, and metafiction, has influenced both comics and film.

So much has been written about the novel that is Watchmen that I feel that I can probably contribute very little in way of insight into the novel that has not been presented before. Any quick google search with the phrase "watchmen" will provide millions of hits deconstructing the themes and import of the novel over the course of the last 20 years. So, I think I will just offer some of my thoughts regarding the novel and what I gleaned from its pages. I will open myself up to many SPOILERS over the next few paragraphs. So, if you intend on seeing the movie, or reading the novel and don't want to know anything about it right now, please stop reading. I'll blog again soon something that you can enjoy.

Watchmen focuses on real people. Real fictional people. Let me explain. After WW2, there began a fad of "vigilante" heroes that cropped up in America. These people didn't have any special powers, but referred to themselves as heroes. They fought crime, dressed up in strange costumes, and did those things that we are familiar with in the typical "superhero" role. The one exception is Dr. Manhattan, who had his "intrinsic field" removed and is now an all powerful being. He is the lynch pin of American society, and due to this knowledge, they live in an alternate world where all cars are electric, and many other technologies exist that we don't even have in our wondrous age of 2009. It's interesting. It's  world that is wholy wrong, and wholy challenging. While the world is far from our own, it's a world that seems plausible. Yes, I'm aware it's not real and never could be. But the way that the novel presents the world, it just feels like it could have happened that way had a few other things fallen differently.

Dr. Manhattan makes for the most interesting study for me. He can deconstruct objects with his mind, and remove the field from each object htat he comes in contact with. Another fascinating thing about him is his ability to see time as one. He sees no past, no future, no present ... he just perceives time. It is a complicated part of the world that Alan Moore has created. Manhattan tells people what they will be doing in hours, days, years from now. He perceives it all. He explains in one moment that it's not that he's taking choice away, he just sees the outcomes of the decisions, of the choices that we will make. It's not about control for Manhattan. It's about being able to see the results before they occur. In one particularly poignant moment, he travels to Mars to contemplate his own disconnect from humanity. He tells his entire history, bringing together every moment from his life as they overlap in time. He perceives the events as if they are occurring at the same moment, events which ultimately come together to lead him to where he is. Now, this may sound complicated, and it is, however, it is handled with a superb grace and subtlety as to make it seem to make sense. Hard to believe, I know.

Rorschach is the other character that I'd like to touch on. He's an absolutist. Absolutely believes in wrong versus right. When presented with the amazing acts of Adrian Veidt (the man who orchestrates the deaths of millions of New Yorkers in order to unite the world against a common enemy), he sees not the benefit that will come from this action. He doesn't comprehend that this will unite the world and prevent nuclear war with the Soviets (who are the major threat due to the lack of the Cold War). He sees only the right and the wrong. There is no utilitarianism in Rorschach's mind ... only good and evil. Ultimately, his end is fascinating in contrast with the world that has been created.

There are so many other things involved in this novel that I could talk about. From the iconoclastic Comedian, to the subtle undertones of powerlessness and fear that are involved in why these people step out to become "heroes".

Overall, just a fascinating analysis of the psyche of these so-called heroes.