This I Believe
There is an NPR series called “This I Believe” which I truly adore. The people who submit their words are able to somehow tie their core beliefs into a minute or so of audio that can somehow describe a lifetime of truth.
I haven’t submitted an essay to that series because my beliefs don’t compress down to a minute of just-so audio. And for me, stating my beliefs feels like standing naked.
And yet, what I believe effects my every action, and what I believe is always there in my actions for the discerning observer to guess. Perhaps this means I am always naked?
I am a Christian. I don’t believe in the literal truth of the entire Bible, especially the early chapters of the Old Testament, but I believe in the theological framework that it outlines. All men are sinners. All men can be saved. I personally believe in the salvation of Jesus Christ, but I also believe there are those who are saved without ever knowing Jesus Christ in their heart because they see in the Universe certain self-evident moral truths which we as humans must struggle to live by. There is room for this belief in the epistles, and given time, and the pile of comments I’m sure this entry will draw, I’m certain I will annotate these words with Biblical passages. And in my heart of hearts, I am always a bit afraid God isn’t as narrow as the Bible would teach.
I am a scientist. I don’t believe science offers the answers to everything, especially questions of the soul and morality, but I believe in the theoretical framework that is defined through scientific observations. The Universe is old (billions of years old) and has evolved from a singularity to today’s world of stars, planets, and life. I believe that to be educated is to understand there are certain self-evident scientific truths that we as humans must struggle to try and understand. There is nothing I have found in the Bible to deny room for this belief, and I am interested in the the pile of comments I’m sure this statement will draw. And in my heart of hearts, I have never been afraid scientific observations are completely wrong.
In considering the juxtaposition of these two sets of statements I find a weak heart, but no contradictions.
People who know me in real life, know that while I am a loud advocate of science, I am a very quiet voice in Christianity. While at Urbana in December of ‘93, I heard a talk on tent making that made a lasting impression. There is a quiet strength in actions. There is something that appeals to me in living a Christian life and when asked, “Why do you do this [kindness of some unrequired sort]?” to respond that it is the correct thing to do, and then, when asked, to bring in my religious beliefs. When asked what I believe, I tell the truth.
But I have to admit that while I am never afraid to say I am an astronomer, I am always afraid to say I am a Christian.
Scientists and Christians are both humans and given to passions. They are fallible as individuals, and given to agendas that go beyond the narrow confines of what science or the Bible says. As humans, they can yell, and avoiding people who yell is one of my (not necessarily low down the list) goals in life.
But I think I’m going to have to get over my fear, because I’m discovering I’m passionate about calling attention to the narrow-mindedness of people believing all or most Christians are anti-science and of people believing all or most scientists are anti-Christian. And I’m really tired of the name calling that originates from both sides.
I am a Christian. And I am a scientist. And I find no internal contradictions.
FAQ:
How do you explain Genesis?
How does one explain the Big Bang to a non-literate society? The book of Genesis is an excellent picture that leaves out the math and still can be loosely fit on the story of science.
How do you explain Miracles?
I can’t. I don’t try. I only need to explain with logic things that can be reproduced, measured, and observed. Everything else I leave to the part of my brain that believes sometimes one monkey typing on one type writer can create Hamlet in one glorious initial set of magically improbable key strokes.
Where is evolution happening today?
Evolution has been shown to occur most often when populations are forced to fill new ecological niches. We can watch the populations of animals on isolated mountain tops genetically diverge. We can watch new strains of plants emerge in the face of disease. Currently we are in the midst of a period of extinctions. With the total biodiversity of the planet going down, we are in the accidental process of making room for a new burst of niche filling evolution, but I’m not convinced we could immediately identify a completely new species if we saw one. We simply don’t have a complete inventory of current life.
[…] In responce to the many comments asking me about my beliefs, I have created a separate page that can be found here. *Hayward, James L. (1998), The Creation/Evolution Controversy : an Annotated Bibliography, Scarecrow Press/Salem Press, p. 11 […]
Pamela,
I wonder if we might reprint this as an article for our online magazine, Christian Faith and Reason. (http://www.christianfaithandreason.com)
Pamela,
I wish we had a label for this belief, because I as well as most of my friends and family are well described in what you have written. In fact, my suspicion has always been that a very large, and silent population, sits in this very spot.
My sadness is that I, like you, am silent when it comes to being Christian (Catholic, and I don’t draw a distinction between the two as others do.) I admit that I freely will tell anyone who wants to know my beliefs on the Big Bang or Evolution, but tread carefully when broaching my religious beliefs. For me, the stigma is not in others knowing my belief in science, rather it is others knowing my belief in God.
I suspect this might be a regional issue too. I don’t live in the Bible Belt of the US, in fact probably it’s opposite in Southern California. Either way, from now on if someone asks what I believe, i think I’ll copy/paste what you just wrote.
Hi Michael, Yes you may reprint it, but please email me a link. (my first name at this site’s name dot com).
Thank you for your comments, Ed. They mean a lot to me.
-P
Hi Pamela,
What a terrific statement of belief. I am trained as a professional historical archaeologist, a profession I practiced for ten years, and see no problem with my belief in evolution and the Big Bang and my active Christian faith. Today I am a licensed American Baptist pastor. The more deeply I pursue my faith, the richer I discover the Scriptures to be, and still they do not conflict with what science continues to discover. As you say, God had to explain creation in terms smart dynamic people living thousands of years ago would understand.
Frankly, from my perspective, the amazing discoveries of science not only help me see how wonderful our universe is, but also show me how very, profoundly, powerfully creative our God is. While I need no proof for my faith, Paul observes that viewed through faith one finds God’s fingerprints everywhere. Seen through either the lens of science or faith, this is an impressive place we live. Seen through both together, I find the universe absolutely amazing!
Thanks you.
I have to be honest, reading your entry did not make me feel too good. A little upfront info about me, practically I’m an atheist (technically agnostic, true atheism would require a leap of faith, something I never do
).
Right now I want to focus on one small piece of what you wrote, it’s the single thing I’ve always found most offensive with Christianity. Why do you believe in Original Sin? My wife just gave birth to our first child. My daughter is 3 weeks old now, and if someone walked up to me and told me she is a sinner and needs to be saved, I would probably punch that person in the face.
I find it offensive and repugnant beyond my ability to convey that anyone would/should be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers.
Can you please use the scientific method, or any reasoned, logical argument to explain how a child just born, or better yet, a child just conceived has sinned? Can you even explain Original Sin, seeing as you don’t hold to a literal belief in the bible? Was there an Adam and Eve to do the Original Sinning or does every baby use his/her free will at conception to become a sinner?
Let me put this another way to show you how a heathen like me views Original Sin. Let’s say you are walking down the street and someone comes up to you and injects you with a syringe. He then tells you that he has just poisoned you and you are going to die a painful, horrible death, but if you agree to become his friend, he will give you the antitode. Would you consider this person a good person?
In Christianity you have a God who has seen fit to give us all life, but life with Original Sin, a one-way ticket to eternal damnation and torture. But if you just really, really believe in Him, he happens to have the antitode…
How anyone can see that as the workings of a loving God is beyond me.
Hi Pamela,
I fully agree with your point of view. In fact, I have felt and thought this way for many years. I’ve met people who are in both extremes in this matter: christians who see scientists as agents of evil trying to prove God doesn’t exist and also, scientists who think those who believe in God are mentally retarded or alienated by a fanatic leader…. I am not in any of those sides but when I find someone like any of these, I just listen and respect their point of view, it’s useless to convince an already convinced person, specially on these matters. In my case, I try not to mix both of my passions, but I try to live each one in its appropiate context and moment. As you said, science requires evidence, so I ask for it when regarding scientific matters, but rely on the Bible and people’s experience when I look for a teaching or an advice on my own personal relationship with God and/or relatives and friends, respectively.
Thanks
Eduardo
So tell me, Dr Gay, given that you state that the bible is not literally true (which I agree with, but I’m agnostic/atheist), what kind of divining rod do you use to chose which verses of the bible are not-literal and can be ignored/not obeyed and which bits are canonical and you must follow.
I believe that you believe that there is a creator, as an agnostic I can understand that; but how can you believe the rest of the man-made and heavily-edited and censured tome of fairy stories? Oh that’s right YOU DON’T! You have chosen to cherry-pick verses based on your own choosing.
You are a bible-believing/following christian or you are not. If you think you can pick the parts that fit your view, that’s your choice of course. But it makes you a hypocrite. All or none. The book is the work of god or it is not.
Anything else is a cop out to allow you to “have faith”, just not in the bible, which is supposed to be the word of the lord.
Hello Doran,
Just an update…. catholic chuch has just debunked that notion, following on what you said in your last paragraph. That is, unborned children or those too small or incapable to choose between good and bad are now considered to go straight to Heaven. Regarding older people who can make this decision and who do not baptise on purpose, well, they are choosing not to do as God mandated, so that’s what really makes someone to be condemned. However, if you are old enough to decide *but* nobody tells you nor teaches you about this, its a different criteria that applies, that is, do you live according to your principles, regarding your relation to others and not making them suffer by action or inaction? Or enjoy having others suffer and/or be in pain?
Well, that’s all I think I can tell you about it, hope it helps.
Bye
Eduardo,
No, that doesn’t help at all. I used children as an example because that tends to hit home more effectively, but your comments address none of my issues.
Regardless of when the assigning of sin occurs, it still occurs. According to you every person on the planet is assigned this original sin at some point after they’ve learned about Jesus and made a free will choice not to believe in him. Why is not believing in Jesus a sin? Why does he need my belief? Why do I get sent to hell just for that? If I live my life helping others, never causing harm, but I don’t believe in jesus, I’m going to hell. Ghandi is in hell while conceivably Hitler, if he gave himself to jesus before he died, is in heaven.
Why would a loving God damn me just for my unbelief? Shouldn’t my actions and the way I live my life, not my beliefs, be the measure by which I’m judged?
Also, can you post the quotes from the bible that support your comments on children going straight to heaven?
Just an addendum, what I’m really looking for is someone to logically defend Original Sin to me, regardless of when it takes effect.
Hi Doran,
Please read my last comment regarding if your are not taught about Jesus, but having principles. Ghandi had principles, and good ones. I cannot think for God, He is The One who judges, but I can just probably think that Ghandi is in Heaven for his actions and his beliefs. About Hitler, I can probably think he is in Hell because of his actions, and he didn’t show any remorse at the end of his life, which is believed he took away, against christian’s belief that God is the only One who can do it.
Regarding children going to Heaven or Hell, I leave that to the Ones who Jesus left to continue his work, that is, the church. I am not a “professional” interpreter of the Bible, so I rely on them, who spend their whole lives studying the Bible. Regarding this paragraph, this is what I believe. If any other person has a different point of view, other religion or any other thought or authority to listen to, I respect that, as long as I am respected in my belief, which has taken way too loooooong for me to think about and accept as it is. If you don’t believe or do not agree my statements, ok, no problem, everyone is free to think as comfortable as you feel, as long as you respect others’ rights and work to make this a better world for you and other people.
Bye
Hi Doran,
I never meant to imply that I believed in original sin. I don’t know what to believe with original sin. What I meant, literally, was that all humans, through their actions become sinners. I had adults in mind when I wrote it. I don’t know at what moment we become responsible for our own actions. I simply know that I do things I shouldn’t, and I am no better or worse than any other. There are sins that deserve punishment on Earth to prevent repeat offence: theft, rape, murder, etc… But we have all done things we shouldn’t have, and because of that I am not in a position to judge others unless I am judging them using the laws of society that protect society.
I don’t have all the answers. I just know I’m not perfect and neither is any other adult who is mentally competent.
And Central Scrutinizer, there is a rich theological study devoted to understanding which books of the Bible are poetical, allegorical, and historical. I don’t pick and choose according to what is convenient. I weigh the historical context and authorship, look for archeological evidence where appropriate, and take for historical what actual seems to be historical, and look for the meaning in books that are poetic or allegorical. I challenge you to study from a cultural stand point the history of the Bible and its different books. I highly recommend the “New Bible Dictionary” as a quick link to academic articles and books.
Pamela
Doran and Pamela,
Nice discussion on Original Sin.
I’ll give you my view.
It may be a bit of a stretch to consider “original sin” as something that is evident within a child from the moment of birth.
What I think is true, however, is that man (or woman) is by his or her nature a sinner. This is why, for example, all the variants of Marxism that believe in the perfectability of man fail.
I suppose you could argue that the sinful nature of man that becomes evident in each one of us at some point was there from the moment of conception, and that it is this that theologians refer to as original sin.
It is only by striving to overcome our sinful nature, through study and prayer, or perhaps through an earnest desire to learn God’s will, that we individually and collectively come to live in a manner that is pleasing to God, and therefore a positive influence on our fellow humans.
Pamela:
Do you believe that Adam and Eve (and the original sin that supposedly took place there) were part of an allegorical tale? The detailed lineage discussed in Genesis would not suggest this.
What about Noah’s Ark?
The age of the Earth?
Most of Leviticus?
Christ’s resurrection?
CS out! …waiting for the version of the Bible that is annotated with “this chapter is just an allegory, don’t take it literally, signed the Pope)
Michael Patrick Leahy:
You are the poster-child for Catholic-Guilt.
I feel *really* bad for you, I’m sorry that corrupt, ungodly organization has SO messed your mind up.
Hi Pamela;
I know what you mean by “standing naked”. I feel the same way when discussing my religious beliefs.
First, about you: Thank you for baring your soul with us. I don’t presume to critique your belief system, I imagine you do enough of that on your own. I will say that when it comes down to it, moderate Christians seem to come under attack from both sides.
Second: I would self-describe as a deist. I was raised as a Christian, but have felt forced out of that belief by the ‘all or nothing’ crowd within the Christian community. I guess I asked too many questions.
Islam can’t stand the Christians because they split Allah into three. Oh, they’re the same God-we all know that really. Original Sin? What a load of bollix. That’s just prudish people, over the centuries, telling us not to fuck around. Science:fine. Religion:fine. Just let me think; don’t tell me what I should do. Love from the UK.
Ciao
Astrogeek,hiya.
Critique is a noun, do you mean criticise or do you mean disparage?
Just checking.
Hi Pamela,
Interesting how much passion is arosed by personal faith. Not being brought up with religion I find it hard to take organised religion any more seriously than say astrology, whitchcraft or ghosts. But those that take comfort in it should be respected and accepted as long as they respect my right not to believe, and understand just because you are not a Christian does not mean you are a bad person. Perhaps even, an atheist who lives a good life without having the ‘big stick’ of religion does so for more honest reasons than their religious cousins?
Never stop asking why and never forget everything we think we know may be wrong.
Hi Les;
‘critique’ is sometimes used as a transitive verb meaning “to examine critically” or “to review”. I used it in that sense; Since I have my own belief system, I will not presume to critically examine the belief systems of others, so long as their belief system doesn’t interfere with my life.
Hi
I can honestly say i do not have a problem consolidating my love of Science and Astronomy with my Faith. In fact it was Science and Astronomy that has renewed my faith with a vengeance and I just want to share this. I do understand that Genesis and the whole Love and Sex thing can be extremely difficult to get the true meaning from. I have been reading a book called Theology of the Body which is pure genius and intended to help us understand the true meaning of these most difficult things. One of the important subjects John Paul II explains that some of Genesis is Objective and some of it is Subjective, this is something that has really helped me.
The reason God is split into three is because of three basic facts, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is a crucial and very important part for me, in the Bible it says it is everywhere, part of everything, but they will not believe it. The Holy Spirit could be Dark Matter and if there was a Big Bang what caused it and what was there before? I know we do not have answers to these questions but it is these sorts of questions that drive me.
as Darwin once said ‘I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect’ after he changed his conclusion in Origin to read ‘breathed by the Creator into’
But that shouldn’t stop us from trying.
Hi All,
I hope it is not too late to enter into this forum. You know I come from an irish-catholic family and raised in Argentina (South America)which is a very catholic country. I am very rational as an electronic and telecommunications engineer can be and also these days I am studying astronomy (Swinburne’s online program). I am 45 and struggled through most of the topics covered by this discussion. But about 8 years ago I read a book called “Conversations with God” written by N.D. Walsch which helped me to approach the Religion vs. Science and daily life from a different perspective.
Hi Pamela,
How do you explain Miracles?
I can’t. I don’t try. I only need to explain with logic things that can be reproduced, measured, and observed. Everything else I leave to the part of my brain that believes sometimes one monkey typing on one type writer can create Hamlet in one glorious initial set of magically improbable key strokes.
lol!
And here was I hoping YOU could give me some insight into how miracles are conceived and/or perceived
How do you explain Genesis?
How does one explain the Big Bang to a non-literate society? The book of Genesis is an excellent picture that leaves out the math and still can be loosely fit on the story of science.
Let There Be Light
Fashioned from clay, endowed with the breath of Life.
====
But back to miracles.
Medical Science promises more miracle drugs and cures every day with much mumbo jumbo, yet people are still willing to pay hoping it will ALL be true one day.
Have you been watching the new series Heroes, a theme on evolution (less fantastic or cartoonlike than the X-Men).
The only subtlety is that man still assumes he is evolving ‘upwards’ - whilst there are some will argue that man has devolved - and forgotten his true origin
No, not quite rubbernecking on non-blacholes, there are certainly Black Holes, singularities and massive gravity in the bulk, but they cannot expect to find or ‘create’ massive gravity in colliders.
PS - Man is used simply as a generic term.
One this religious issue, for me, it comes down to one question - did the creator intend for his creations to have freewill? If the answer to that question is “yes” with the stipulation that if said human fails to adopt a certain belief system then said human will face eternal damnation. Then, I’m sorry, that’s not freewill. That “contract” sounds like something else altogether.
I’m a husband and a father. I have a daughter. If it were possible for me to limit my daughter’s freedom to that extent I described above, would I do it? Of course not. I love her too much for that. So, if there is a God, don’t you think he has an equal or greater capacity to love than I do? I certainly hope so. So let’s rethink this. My position on my daughter is this. I will love my daughter with all my heart and all my soul no matter what she chooses in life. And I will welcome her into my house no matter what trouble or difficulty she finds herself in. If she drifts away from me, I will miss her terribly and count the days until I see her again, if that day comes. If that day doesn’t come, if she abandons all that I have ever taught her and turns her back on me, I will sadly look back on the days when I did have her in my life and cherish them for the end of time. But I would love her no less, and I would welcome her in my home if I ever saw her again.
Now ask yourself a question. Would a loving God do anything less?
Hi Alex, pretty good.
The first question of course is IS There A God?
The second question is what IS God Like?
The third question is would A God have or be ‘limited’ by human or mortal emotions.
Now let Us assume (1) there IS A God
Let Us recognize (2) we have no notion of what A God could or would be like.
Let Us agree (3) that A God is obliged to provide unconditional free will, else God faces the accusation as you point out of denying us free will.
But how free is your daughter?
By design or by default she is born into her DNA
By design or by default YOU are her father
By design or by default she is born in whatever country at whatever TIME in history(?)
By design or by default she has whatever skills and whichever ability to achieve whatever - depending on, limited or nurtured by ‘environment’ & circumstance.
The only ‘freewill’ she has in essence is to believe or not that there IS A GOD, and most philosophies would argue to ’surrender’ freely to the will of God.
You know the passion of Christ? God, why waste my life why though it away (why sacrifice me like a Lamb)
Please take this cup away, let me continue this human or mortal life of the flesh (a little longer, say for four score years and maybe a little more).
But the whole Tenet of the Passion of Christ, is to surrender to God’s Will - “Let Thy Will Be Done” - and enter into Life Eternal.
On that, and that alone resolves the whole tenet of christianity, for if there is no Eternal Life, and there is NO God - and all there is IS this mortal life
then we are speculating on nothing at all.
As to what is right & what is wrong, I think it is beyond the human Mind to judge, for in any battle any war both sides may be fighting (and killing) for the very same ideals - love, passion, family, freedom, liberty and democracy(?) - will that be Athenian, Roman or US Democracy(?)
But let me put a question to you:
Why is one person born diseased and another healthy
Why is one person born rich and another poor
Why is one person born gifted & another disabiled
Where is the Free Will in that?
ould you be willing to lay down your life for your daughter, would you be willing to kill for your daughter. You have the Free Will to choose, or maybe whichever choice you make was predetermined, and we are really only actors on a stage, with a role to play
If you see your daughter doing wrong, will you tell her she is doing wrong - or will you let her carry on?
And if she’s driving at 100 MPH on the wrong side of the road?
Hi Pamela,
Thank you for sharing your personal beliefs here, I too came to a time in my life where I realized I was a sinner and made a personal decision to follow Jesus and Christian teaching. As I learn more about Astronomy and the Universe,it becomes clear there is very little conflict between Christian teaching and the new information been discovered about the Universe we live in. This little corner of our galaxy is perfectly designed to produce life which can ultimately look up at the sky and wonder at Gods handywork. I trust fully in science to explain the mechanics of it all, while trusting in biblical teachings to explain the meaning of it, from a human perspective. Its our eternal soul which gives life meaning and makes us human. No other creature on earth looks up at the stars and wonders what its all about… I think you can’t have one without the other.
Hello Quasar9,
Well crafted. Your reasoning and logic are rock solid. Now would you be willing to consider the following possibility: that freewill exists prior to birth?
Now doesn’t that open a world of possibilities? What if we choose the life we now inhabit, be it in a rich or poor family. What if we choose the life we now live?
If that were the case, then my daughter is still choosing:
Her DNA
Her father
Her country
And whatever skills and abilities she now possesses.
I prefer to use words like imply whether something works or not, rather than saying something is right or wrong. If my daughter was flying down the highway at 100 MPH in the wrong lane, then her choice is not necessarily wrong (for her, if she is choosing that path for herself), but rather, her decision doesn’t work to promote the preservation of her life and others.
I believe you were on the right track when you said we have no notion of what a God could or would be like. Yes, I believe in God, but not in the traditional sense. I believe our minds are too limited to grasp the concept fully. But that’s okay, because the fun is in trying, right?
Alex
Hi Alex, interesting notion
that we ‘choose’ who where & when we are born.
However who in their right mind would choose to be born mentally challenged, or ’severely’ physically challenged.
My only objection to the concept of Cosmic Karma, ie: we are born according to past deeds (new souls being born without baggage) is that if there are consequences to our actions in the next life - how are we to learn from our mistakes, if we do not know what we are being punished or rewarded for.
And of course, if ‘we’ can choose where & when to be born, there will always be those who choose to be born in difficult conditions to help others less able and hope to those in despair. But how can one help others if one is so severely disable and so dependant on others or society, that one cannot help oneself, never mind help others.
And I agree with you - god, ultimately - just like you would let your daughter fly at a hundred mile an hour on the wrong side of the road. And when people ask god - the reply would be the same - she wanted free will, she was exercising her free will.
Of course society would deem her irresponsible, and if she crashed and caused any deaths and she survived - in most instances she would face ‘manslaughter’ charges.
PS - having driven at high speed on the wrong side of the road myself more than once, I know the thrill of it all - fortunately I came to realise the real risk, and the horror of the mangled wreckage when it all goes wrong - before I did any damage. When we are young and we drive or overtake wrecklessly we feel immortal, and we give up doing it on the open road, because we grow up and develop a sense of responsibility or is it response-ability, and some sense of right or wrong.
Quasar9,
I’m afraid I don’t know much about Cosmic Karma. The notion that our future existence is based on our past deeds is not one I personally subscribe to, though it is an interesting concept. I do however favor the idea that the life we choose (prior to birth) is filled with purposes that extend beyond our own “personal” needs, as you pointed about above. A concept that resonates with me is that of oneness; that all of us are connected more than we realize. In fact, what if the greatest secret of all time was that you and I were one and the same, that were were leaves from the same branch, sprouting off the same tree?
If this were true, then the choices I made prior to birth would not be limited to just me (my interests); they would include you and everyone else on this planet, because, we are all one. When you look around, at war and suffering around us, our oneness doesn’t seem too apparent, does it? When you see people who are mentally or physically challenged, as you stated, it’s difficult to see purpose in our existence, does it not?
Yet, I believe purpose exists.
In my view, we don’t have to allow a tragedy to remain without purpose in our lives; we can create purpose and meaning. In my view, we don’t have to allow the birth of a physically disabled person to destroy our lives; we can create purpose and meaning in that event too.
So to return to your question, “who in their right mind would choose to be born mentally challenged, or severely physically challenged?” I might answer that question with a question of my own: Where would we be without those events in our lives?
Alex
Hi Alex, if we are to believe that there is life other than the present life - ie: prior life, life before we are born and afterlife, life after we leave the body …
I will grant that there may be beings who choose when, to who and where to be born (and consciously live this existence).
However for the majority of us that have no conscious recollection of life much further than a handful of childhood memories, I would have to ask who would choose to be born the guinea pig - or child with a life threatening condition - in need of a doctor or surgeon to treat him or find a cure.
The whole problem with this, is that there is no point to living a life of pain & suffering or severe disability, if there is life prior to and after the ‘body’
Sure the life experience, the human life experience is about the experiences of the Mind (brain) in the body - but who in their right mind would choose a body with a debilitating or life threatening disease. I don’t even enjoy toothache, and I try and avoid any known causes of headaches, but as you know there are some ‘inherited’ human conditions that are far worse.
I put it to you that man (or woman) in his/her desire to be godlike wants to reproduce. That this DNA has to be endowed with life, and that we are that life contained in the body.
But if I could choose, even with your philosophy of being one & the same, and leaves from the same branch - would we all not be improving society by wanting to be born the best the fittest the cleverest the smartest …
After all in the film Wall Street the mantra - “Greed is good” is in essence a truism - everything we have in society from internet to mobile video phones, from dvds to console games, and even surgery & drugs, comes from greed or someones desire to either make money, or receive acclaim or even to do good. There is no selfish act (so to speak).
But ultimately it is those on earth that are creating life (procreating) and though we might like to think of ourselves as the pinnacle of society to date, we are also surrounded by the pinnacle of disease - 5 million in the US with Alzheimers, and endless millions of others with inherited illness or disease. I shall not include acquired diseases to the list.
All these people born with the disease, whatever the disease may be (heart condition, osteoporosis or simplyt the signs of ageing) I assure you not one of them chose it. And most would give their right arm or ’sell their mother’ to be shot of it.
Therefore I would argue that it is us here NOW that limit the physical DNA choices for anyone born to human (mortal) life. Not forgetting the first limit is mortality itself.
And I will agree that ’someone’ born severely disabled or handicapped is born so thru no fault of his own, but what is the motivation to hold onto that body, except quasi-religious or some such-like selfish motherly ‘instincts’
Previous civilisations at various times in history would have no trouble exercising eygenics and throwing those bodies over the walls of sheol - whereas today’s confused (warped?) society seems to have no trouble terminating millions of otherwise healthy foetuses in the mother’s womb.
And of course clinical terminations of foetuses which are severely deformed or diseased are legal - most everywhere.
You said “the majority of us have no conscious recollection of life much further than a handful of childhood memories, I would have to ask who would choose to be born the guinea pig – or child with a life threatening condition – in need of a doctor or surgeon to treat him or find a cure. “
If you follow my reasoning that we choose our path in life prior to birth, then let us imagine that prior to birth we have perfect memory of our lives (past, present and future) in all their beauty and elegance. Recognize that in this construct that I am describing, time as we know it would cease to exist and concepts such as “before” and “after” would be irrelevant. Only that which we call the “Now,” the present moment where all possibilities coexist, would apply.
So we, in that infinite moment, prior to birth, would choose a path, a life, an existence where we can physically step (out of the infinite realm) into a finite existence where possibilities exist in discrete packets of time. Why would we do that? Relativity, my friend. How can I experience hot, if cold doesn’t exist? How can I experience brief moments of ecstasy if both time and that which is the absence of ecstasy doesn’t exist. I need the world of relativity to experience all there is.
For the One to experience all there is, the One must exist and be all things simultaneously throughout the entire universe.
The healthy, the lame, the sick, the dead.
The goat, the giraffe, the guinea pig, the goose.
The roots, the trunk, the branches, the leaves.
All things coexisting simultaneously in perfect harmony. I am not better than you. You are not better than I. We are One body.
Yet our beliefs divide us as a people. We don’t understand that you are me, and I am you, viewed through a filter of our past experiences.
In the beginning, we know this. We remember it. But when we enter this life our memories begin anew. Life takes hold and shapes our perceptions and, regretably, the concept of Oneness fades. And at worse, the idea that we are different from one another distorts our perceptions of one another to an unhealthy point of no return.
Other, more enlightened beings, remember, over time. A flash of inspiration. We hear a truth so basic that our reaction is more recollection than realization.
You said “the majority of us have no conscious recollection of life much further than a handful of childhood memories, I would have to ask who would choose to be born the guinea pig – or child with a life threatening condition – in need of a doctor or surgeon to treat him or find a cure. “
We are all tied to one another, the child with the life threatening condition, the guinea pig, and the doctor. Just because we don’t see the linkages, doesn’t mean they don’t exist, or we don’t remember…why we need each other.
We are tied to each other in the fabric of space and time. One of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time is how space-time is distorted in the presence of large planetary bodies. As you know, this explains the planetary orbits quite nicely. I believe there is a similar fabric that binds each of us to one another, just as these heavenly bodies are tied to one another. Ever walk in a room and feel your eyes being pulled somewhere? ever wonder about coincidences? Are they really random events? All interesting stuff to ponder, I think.
I think an important point in all of this is that Pamela, who is both a scientist AND a Christian, is in the distinct minority. Most scientists (and there have been detailed and extensive studies about this) show that a very small portion of scientists also believe in a supernatural god. I think the reason for this is quite obvious to me - science is now beginning to dispel many claims made in the Bible in terms of the beginning of the universe, the age of the earth etc. You cannot believe both, and despite Pamela’s claims of being able to pick and choose bits of the Bible that she feels are still relevant, I do not believe this method has any credence.
While I respect Pamela greatly and enjoy her podcasts, I do find it extraordinary that she can still believe in sin while being such an intelligent, logical woman. The human ability to compartmentalise certain parts of the brain in relation to contradicting beliefs continue to amaze and facinate me.
Hi,
I must admit I was disappointed by the above. I listen religiously (pun intended) to every Astronomy Cast episode and think you are a great explainer of science.
However, how you can say that:
“The book of Genesis is an excellent picture that leaves out the math and still can be loosely fit on the story of science”
is beyond me. Either it is factual or it is not. It is obviously not so how can it fit with science? I don’t know why, but the talking snake bit doesn’t seem true to me.
To be frank, embarrassment is the main tone you seem to put over, and I can guess why.
Best wishes anyway and keep up the great podcasts.
John
As a lover of all things scientific, I was excited to stumble upon this site after a blurb about it at skeptics.com. As an atheist, however, I must be honest and say that I’m a tad disappointed. Now, not to be intolerant, it’s just that I’ve always found ’sanctuary’ in Science, inasmuch as I have found it in atheism. (Truth be told: in Humanism.)
Perhaps Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson summed it up best when he said that just because we can’t explain things, it doesn’t mean we have to make things up! Or, more importantly, give up on the next generation of explorers! It’s insulting to our children to believe that just because we may not know the answer right at this very moment, that the answer will lie far beyond the scope of their reach as well. No, we may not have all the answers right now. But, that shouldn’t ever stop us from reaching!
Or, from believing in the minds of those who’ve yet to fully ponder the wonder that is this vast, magnificent world of ours. A world that’s ours to nurture and respect, so that one day our children will look upon it with the same curious eyes and be able to draw their own, albeit ever more enlightened, conclusions.
Peace.
SO…I can’t remember who said this first, however: “All models are wrong, some models are useful.” The christian model is so wrong it is only marginally useful in todays wonderful magnificent world. On the flip side, there seems to be fewer beheadings, stonings, burnings at the stake and general vivisection of humans done by christian lovers of god these days compared to say islamist lovers of allah or I don’t know, Maori lovers of liver. So lets give Pam a break. We asked what she believed and now she’s told us. I have a quite smart friend who lites candles on an altar to a giant turtle supported by preponderous pachiderms, really! at least Her descriptions of astronomy/cosmology are fun and understandable and that model incorporates only small amounts of bloodshed.
Roughly and wild into that Good Night!
From what I’ve learned, I knew that trusting everything naively isn’t the smartest thing to do. The contradictions and disparities between many religions (if all their ‘rules’ are obeyed absolute precision) amongst themselves, as well as with science is what drove me nuts over a few days some time this year. I presumed it as a step towards maturity, but now I don’t find them as contradicting as they used to be.
I’ve given up persuading firm Christians (my African classmates) about evolution; after all, I can barely hold my own stance when it comes to defending my own view. I initially thought that they had persuasively disassembled my reasons to be an atheist, and laid down a framework to be a Christian, but I was wrong. I never had any sufficient reasons, which I was satisfied of, to be an atheist in the first place. Nor did I plan to become a Christian or a follower of any religion. Now, I’m mostly stuck in the “void of space” somewhere between that of a theist and an atheist.
The Bible to me is more of a guide to be morally correct, even though I barely read it. Now the only one I can trust now is what I truly believe myself, starting with the basic moral principle of good being “selfless” and bad being “selfish”. I can trust myself, right? (I could be wrong) Everything else? It’ll be like “evolution has mostly likely (not absolute) occurred, while it is very unlikely that Mars will be blue-colored in the next second (who says it can’t happen? Since quantum jitters happen all the time)”.
So I found your peaceful co-existence quite plausible, though something I was surprised of since you’ve made so many mentions of things like life evolving from bacteria. (Yes, I’m “narrow-minded”, but I hope I won’t be again.)
(By the way, I wonder how do people put smileys in their comments?)
Pamela
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, in the light of some of the comments above you were right in predicting a rough passage…
As a confirmed skeptic I look about at a world full of different belief systems, most of which have been shaped by their environments, predesessors (religions they have absorped along with, say, the date of Christmas…) and self interest. A favourite book of mine commented that religion had caused more and bloodier wars than anything else. Possibly true, on the otherhand mankind seems to be just bloodyminded. And over the next few years water and oil will beat that lot hands down.
When people say they believe the bible, every word, I ask them “which one? Which edition? The one before the one in which the work “virgin” got mistranslated from young woman?”.
It does upset them. Sorry!
On the other hand why was there a Big Bang? I think this may be what Pamela means in her comments on Genesis.
Harry Harrison said a lot when he wrote what I suspect was his belief system - this is it, we get one try at this thing called life. Therefore each one is precious and we should not take all they have from anyone else. That is the ultimate theft.
With best regards to you all.
As a long time listener of both Astronomycast and Slacker astronomy, I think it’s awsome that Dr. Gay is willing to share a little bit about her faith. I think it’s quite courageous. I agree that there are probably lots of people who see no significant contradictions between Christianity and science.
I’m a mechanical engineer who became a Christian as an adult.
Pamela,
I have been enjoying listening to the Astronomy Cast podcast, thanks for the effort that you put into it.
I am a Christian and came to know Christ as an adult. I was happy to see your profession to be a Christian but troubled by some of your comments on the truth of the Bible and the way to salvation.
I believe that the Bible is true as it is written and that it is put into a context that we can understand (simplified, if you will). How can you pick and choose what you believe? If we say that events, such as Noah’s Ark, did not or could not happen, aren’t we really just trying to bring God down to our level and therefore limiting the creator of our universe? I believe that God is a being, for lack of a better word, from out of the constraints of time and space. How could we be qualified to even begin to say God could or could not do something, yet alone understand why?!?!
What is more troubling is that you think there is a way to salvation without Jesus Christ! In John 14:6, Jesus himself says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” I used to be the person who believed that I would make it to heaven by my mostly moral life, thank God that Jesus came into my life!
Please reconsider some of the doubts you have in the Bible and what it says about salvation. Please do not take this as a personal attack (on you or any of the previous posters), I would enjoy nothing more than to spend eternity (a dimension without time?) with all of you: just accept the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ…completely and bravely, not as distorted by worldly views and pressures.
Let the attacks begin…as I and Jesus know they will.
Kenny {
Pamela,
I first went to Urbana 1970, about a month after Jesus became my Lord. I was also privileged to go to Urbana 1973 & 1976. I was actually an Inter-Varsity Campus staff during Urbana 1976 and had time to speak with John Stott and others.
I was also able to spend a year at Regent College in Vancouver to receive a diploma in Christian Studies. As you might know, Regent is a graduate school dedicated to helping professionals study the difficult questions of the Christian faith and to bring their academic training and scholarship in their faith up to the same level as their professional training.
I my case I am a biologist, a plant scientist, a botanist, a special educator, and a family nurse practitioner in family practice and psychiatry. But Astronomy was my first “love”.
I became a biologist to answer the question “Why Life?”
Regarding Genesis chapters 1 to 7, I have a few observations to make:
1. The American Scientific Affiliation (http://www.asa3.org/) is an excellent organization of scientists who are Christians and strive to have excellent scholarship in faith and their area of research,
2. I had the privilege of taking a class in Genesis from Dr. William Martin, PhD (he translated Isaiah in the NIV) who was an excellent hebrew scholar and man of God. He made it quite clear that the writer of Genesis was clearly using hebrew literary tools to help a world with a very distorted understanding of God begin to grasp who God is.
For example, in the first chapter, the writer uses a perspective tool similar to increasing the power objective of a microscope to move from the perspective of the creation of the whole universe to the place of man in the universe [click, click, click] and with each click narrowing the field of focus. He used the literary tool of a completed day to move onto the next field of focus.
The quesions being answered is WHY THE UNIVERSE & MAN (purpose)? not HOW THE UNIVERSE & MAN (mechanism). The second chapter, therefore is not a second creation, but another tool to show the intimacy of God with His creation of man, woman, and marriage. These types of literary tools are used throughout the first 7 chapters.
It is obvious that to take the bible “literally” means to take the literary tools used to communicate seriously.
To make a document speak about “Mechanism” when it is answering the question of “Purpose” is to NOT take the document “literally”.
3. A wonderful man at USC, an engineer, dean of student life, and IVCF sponsor, Dr. Robert Mannes, told me this story to help me understand the intent of the writer of Genesis (by the way many think this is Moses who had PhD level training in Egypt and was no dummy):
“A man came into a room where another man was standing and a women was sitting behind a desk. There was a glass pot filled with water on an electric hot plate.
The man who entered said, “Why is the water boiling?”
The man in the room answered something like this; “Well, water is falling in the mountains releasing potential energy stored from evaporation, turning a turbine, developing electromotive forces in electrons, which are moving throw wires with high resistance, increasing the energy in the electrons of the wire’s atoms which decays to release photons in the IR range which impart kinetic energy to water molecules with sufficient force to let them overcome the surface tension, etc. ”
But the woman said,
“NO, that’s not why the water is boiling” - “I am making hot water for coffee!!”
The writer of Genesis, especially the first 7 chapters, is carefully and skillfully answering the “Purpose” questions of Why Man, WHy the Universe, Why life, Why marriage, etc.
He is not attempting to answer the “Mechanism” questions.
It is to do literary violence to the intent of the author and the document to try and make the text answer questions it was not intended to answer.
It would be like making “The Old Man and The Sea” answer all the questions of marine biology.
The real tragedy is that those of us who know the maker of the universe can have additional insight into the biology, physics, psychology, psychiatry, etc. of the creation because we can know how the mind of the maker “thinks” - at least that is His hope.
Therefore, in the past, Christians were at the forefront of science with theology at the core of the academic world - thus the term - University - with the mind of God at the center of all the academic disciplines - i.e. the unifying discipline.
It is sloppy theology that has kept 3 generations of Christians from moving into the leadership roles in sciences and becoming the stewards of God’s creation that we are intended to be in this world.
So, Pamela, if you read this, I hope it helps.
And thank you for your excellent Astronomy Cast and very simple, C.S. Lewis like, pictures you use to help us understand the wonderful universe and by reflection the wonderful mind of our God and Creator.
Tom Roseland, BS, MS, BSN, MSN, RN, PHN, FNP-C
FAO Kenneth A
Two things Kenneth:
1. If no-one can be saved without Jesus, then what happens to the billions of adults, and especially children, who lived their life without being taught this? Do they get a free pass to heaven or do they go to hell for ever? If the first then that isn’t fair and if they don’t then that isn’t fair either. In fact the latter would be downright evil.
2. Do you honestly believe a human being could save every form of mammal, reptile, bacteria, virus, insect from every part of the earth, and stick them all on a big boat? How did he manage to get every form of food, stop them eating each other and dispose of the tons of feces? It’s laughable nonsense.
Someone asked earlier what you would call a belief system like this and I believe correct term is “Deist”.
Dr Gay, reading your ‘I believe’ statement and the comments beneath has made me feel I would like to add to the discussion above.
In particular, I thought I’d add my ‘thoughts’, for what their worth, on ‘Original Sin’ and Miracles.
Original Sin - It’s always struck me as a great irony that evolution almost perfectly describes what ‘unregenerate’ animals are, yet is so attacked by some. Hence ‘The Selfish Gene’ was such a great title, as well as a good book. If we’re evolved animals, then we are inherently selfish. I also believe in God’s love and don’t see him as some kind of robot who just hands out reward/punishment mechanically. As Paul writes ‘… [non-Christians’ (’Gentiles’ in the original)] thoughts now accusing, now even defending them … on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.’ (Rom.2v15-16). We all get a fair hearing, or better!
Miracles - what’s the difference between God acting and, eg to take a trivial but already used example, my turning on an electric kettle? If you hadn’t seen me turn on the kettle but simply saw the kettle apparently turn ‘itself’ on, that would be akin to a ‘miracle’. No obvious explanation, yet the water boils. Just so we are unable to perceive God directly, but do so indirectly thru’ ‘events’ which, since we see no direct cause we call ‘miracles’.
I know this stuff is simple but it helps me.
Hg
PS On science I’ve always subscribed to Cardinal Baronio’s defence of Galileo: “The bible teaches the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.”
PPS Love the show - AstroCast - absolutely wonderful, thank you (and Fraser) for it.
Pamela, thanks for putting your heart on the page as a Christian and a scientist. I am always suspecting that God is a bit outside of our definitions - hence the need for a picture of himself in Jesus. The story of God’s action in Christ is the only thing that makes sense to me in this world, even and maybe especially in that there are many loose ends to deal with.
I liked Slacker Astronomy last year, but I very much like AstronomyCast. Thanks for your work and comments.
How did you know my father? Dean Robert L Mannes at USC?
You nice words are appreciated but I did not get the whole point. He is 86 and living with me in Colorado. I will pass on your comments to him. “a wonderful man at USC, an engineer, dean of student life and IVCF sponsor Dr. Robert Mannes told me this story to help me understand the intent of the…” I could not find what he told you?
Mary
Hello Dr. Gay,
I have been listening to Astronomy cast since episode 7 (I went back to listen to the first six, of course). You and Frazier provide an educational and fun podcast. Keep up the great work.
On your statement of belief, I would like to thank you for taking time to expose your inner self. I am also a Christian (Presbyterian) and have found myself questioning everything. I have found comfort in a belief system similar to yours.
How can some one argue for or against the concept of God creating the heavens and the earth in six days when the story was written by man to describe something that is barely able to be comprehended? Why couldn’t the six days described in the bible be equivalent to millions and millions of years. To me the words “And God said let there be light” is a way of describing the explosion of a singularity in to our known universe. Maybe this is a cop out but I haven’t found any proof to say that that couldn’t be the case.
Bravo for having the guts to put yourself out there. I look forward to hearing more from you in the future.
Nicely written, Pamela.
I used to believe, long ago. But over the years, when I was my most troubled, my most vexed, my most in need, I would quite literally prostrate myself and cry to god for help. I would cry and beg and plead for hours, even days on end. There was no small, still voice to respond. There was no stirring of dust in a corner. There was no answer or response of any kind. Yet I clung to my faith.
Remember the scripture that says god will not allow you to be tempted or tried beyond your ability to withstand? After times like I mentioned above, I came to realize it was not true. Still, I clung to my faith.
A few years ago, after another round of soul-searching and soul-wrenching pain, I realized this, and my faith died. It died kicking and screaming, and very nearly took me with it.
Today I live without the aid of an “invisible friend” (as another friend puts it.) I trust my senses most of the time, and do what I can to analyze anomalous “inputs.” I trust Science, and completely distrust all religions.
I sometimes envy you who can believe, because there is comfort in being able to say “god did it.” But until there is repeatable, testable evidence of some supernatural being, I cannot drink from that well. Why? Because as far as I can tell, it is a mirage, and sand isn’t water.
Hi Pamela
Fantastic to continually come across scientists who at the very least, acknowledge the real possibility that God was/is responsible for all the good stuff. I work for Creation Ministries International so our/my view is that it is essential that we believe the entire Bible, including the literal creation in a literal 6 days. As so many have pointed out, if you cannot believe the stuff at the start, then how can you have any confidence that the rest of the Bible has any real validity? Makes me think anyway.
Also wanted to make a request. Would you give permission for us to use the photo of Neil deGrasse Tyson that you have on your blogsite, on our website (http://www.starstryder.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/plg_tyson_0701.jpg)? We put a new article on to the website every day and it would be included in an article titled ‘ Science, Creation and Evolutionism’ - http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5620 (we want to replace the current photo). No worries either way. Has been good to check out your blogg anyway.
Ciao & God bless
After reading this book I doubt everything
http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
— Epicurus
If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests.
— Baron D’Holbach
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
— Carl Sagan
This essay is very disappointing, Pamela. I suggest you think harder about your own beliefs.
Wow, the last type of scientist I’d expect to be a Christian is an astronomer. How provincial!
You’ve really hurt your credibility here, Pamela. If you have such an obvious blind spot for religion — something exactly equivalent to believing in Santa Claus — then why should I trust the other things you say?
-Sparky
Hi Pamela, nice blog. I just friended you on Twitter & also hope to check out some of your podcasts soon.
I must say, I really liked the tone of your post. As a Christian with a technical background (aerospace engineer) who has studied/researched science & faith topics for two decades, it’s frustrating how rare it is to see a calm, open discussion with a honest admission that one doesn’t know everything.
It’s funny, then, how some folks expect you suddenly as a scientist, by asserting you’re a Christian, to have answers to everything!
Nevertheless, many of the comments were quite interesting. I really feel for people struggling to reconcile Christian faith with science. I’d agree there aren’t really contradictions, if you can see things from a proper perspective.
Tom Roseland mentioned studying at Regent in Vancouver. If I may recommend one book that might be very helpful for scientists, it’s Regent Prof. Emeritus Eugene Peterson’s Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places (http://tinyurl.com/ypat95 , Brief review: http://tinyurl.com/24a59h ).
Peterson spends a lot of time discussing how it’s important for Christians to really appreciate the wonder of our world & universe. This is something understood by scientists, who are trained to observe, and Peterson shows how the Church really needs this perspective to be healthy.
I expect the book will help scientists with at least some faith in God feel a real confirmation that, yes, science is a quite valuable field that does, indeed, have a lot to contribute to our spiritual life.
I found this article of Pamela’s very interesting, because I thought it was a prerequisite of scientists to debunk religion, or rather rubbish ‘intelligent design’ etc… I am an atheist (although really by definition - im agnostic, because obviously it cannot be proved either way… although the fact that god’s existence cannot be proved tends to suggest that he doesn’t actually exist… BUT that’s another argument)
however I do believe that people should live their lives by some kind of moral code / faith… I personally follow the karma/my name is earl principle… do bad things bad things happen/do good things, good things happen… In reality that is a load of tosh because there are plenty bad people out there doing bad things who are having the best time ever, but I like to think the world would be a better place if everybody lives by some kind of moral code and treats each other nice etc… BUT what I don’t like about religion is their insistence on saying ‘my religion is better than yours’ etc (ie Christianity VS Islam) or people telling me I’m going to Hell because I don’t believe in Jesus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever. But that is besides the point. Personal religion is cool… just don’t let it cloud your judgement/rational when confronted by the realms of science… God is just an idea like Karma
SO my point is I think it is fine that Pamela has her faith… as long as she doesn’t start saying “god did it” …
I wouldn’t be ashamed of your religious belief. When I was 18 I couldn’t understand how a “scientific” person could also believe in God. It was easy to make fun of my friends/peers who did. Ten years later, my view on the topic has tempered a lot. I’ve known too many intelligent people in the sciences who were also religious to varying degrees to hold onto the naive belief that people are incapable of rational thought while holding irrational beliefs. Human beings just aren’t simple enough for terms like “hypocrisy” to hold any real meaning beyond making good soundbites.
I’m sure if we all took a good hard look at ourselves, we’d find plenty of irrational aspects of our beliefs and personalities (whether or not they have any relation to religion). I’m about as religious as a rock, but I certainly have my share of irrational beliefs and personality traits. I like to believe they don’t interfere with my scientific work though.
Now, there are people who definitely can’t keep the irrational separate from the rational. Unfortunately, many of them seem to be dipped in religion, which makes it easy for us to condemn anyone who admits to religious beliefs.
While I don’t know Pamela personally (saw her at LPSC last week though I didn’t realize she was our Astronomy Cast Pamela until I listened to the last episode on my flight out of Houston or I’d have stopped to say hi), I have listened to some 70+ of her podcast episodes and haven’t heard anything to indicate she isn’t able to approach scientific ideas with a rational mind, regardless of her religious beliefs. And that is not something I would ever condemn.
Keep up the good work with the podcast.
Though I enjoy listening to your astronomy cast, I am puzzled by your religious beliefs. Why do you believe in the specific theology of Christianity? Why not one of the other numerous religions or mythology? Maybe there is a creator or are creators, but to pretend that Christianity is the truth behind the cosmos doesn’t jibe with your high intelligence, Dr. Gay.
But most people I know call themselves Christians. We skeptics are in the great minority…And I’ll keep listening to your astronomy casts.
Regards,
Tim
“…but I believe in the theological framework that it outlines. All men are sinners. All men can be saved. I personally believe in the salvation of Jesus Christ,…”
So if we can’t force ourselves to say we believe in this horrid, childish, universal dictator, we end up in the everlasting torture of Hell. Yes, that sure is a good moral belief.
We are saturated with religion–everywhere! The one place we could count on being free from mythology was the scientific community. Now it may be falling under the spell of make-believe.
A really inspirational piece of writing.
I have always struggled with how to communicate to friends, if it comes up in conversation, why I can love all that science offers, while at the same time find room for belief in the existence of God. Reading what you have written here mirrors my thoughts nearly exactly, although my thoughts have far less clarity.
I also get frustrated with the ’science vs religion’ issue, and assumptions some people make about certain beliefs of others on either side. It is far more complicated than some people would like to make out, and I truly think that anyone that thinks it’s a simple ’science vs religion’ issue, has fallen victim to believing in a false dichotomy.
Thanks for helping me to see that there are some really smart people in the world, that refuse to be close minded about things science has no answer for; yet.
PS: Love your show. Listen to it every week.
Hey, Dr. Gay, isn’t it great that no one can be elected president without pretending to be a born again believer?
How can YOU as a scientist not understand how much easier it is just to pretend you believe in the Christian god than it is to say you are skeptical? The reason I seem a little upset about YOUR belief isn’t that I’m not for freedom of religion–it’s because scientists are the only ones who seem to share my skepticism in religion. Everyone I know is either a believer in the nonsense of religion or afraid to speak out against it.
The percentage of believers in a personal god and believers that Columbus was the one who discovered the Earth was round is about equal. Do you believe Columbus was the first to discover the earth was round? No, I didn’t think so. So why do you hang on to your brainwashed, youthful, Santa Claus belief in a personal tyrant god? If a person such as I–far less intelligent than you–was able to give up this childlike faith shortly after belief in Santa, why can’t you? Are you afraid of Hell? What a wonderful, loving God! The creator of Hell. No, I don’t believe that. And I no longer believe in Santa.
What ever happened to separation of church and state?
The “open minded” people on this page have things backwards. When you “know” God, you have closed your mind. I hope you can get it open again.
You don’t need to call me an idiot, Dr. Gay; I concede your superior intelligence. But you need to question childlike faith.
I do still enjoy your show.
Regards,
td
Hi Pamela,
I have been a listener of AstronomyCast for a long time now and have always been impressed with your efforts at educating the public about science. . . . at least until I saw this essay.
As somebody said above, I find it hard to believe that an astronomer could believe in something so provincial as Christianity. Why Jesus? Why not the other 4,000 gods being worshipped on Earth now? Your failure to examine how your culture obviously constructed your beliefs is very disappointing.
Clinging to one of the human race’s thousands of ancient myths is so simplistic and convenient! These myths may have served a purpose at one time, during the pre-scientific childhood of our species, when stories of magical beings provided comfort. But in 2008, there is just no argument: believing in God/Jesus is precisely equivalent to believing in Santa Claus.
I feel sorry for you if you cannot see this.
Dear Pam,
I identify very strongly with your statement about often being afraid to talk about my religious beliefs. I work in a science department at a university, and, while I talk about my beliefs if they come up at social department events, there is definitely that feeling of being the only person in my position. I come from a highly educated family with two parents who hold multiple graduate degrees in both physical and human sciences, and I realize that it is very hard for people like my parents and my co-workers to understand my ability to believe in both science and Christianity. Conversely, it is very difficult for friends and family who identify more strongly with their religion than with science to understand how I can balance my belief in them as I do.
Thank you for refusing to be easily categorized in the “science vs. religion” debate; I promise to continue that work here at my university.
And for all of the people who have posted to this list bashing Pam as irrational for her religious beliefs, I offer one simple thought: ultimately, Christianity is not about sin, nor is it about creating convenient explanations for things we don’t understand; rather, it is about humility. In this way, Christianity shares a great deal with Astronomy–both help us to realize that each of us is not the center of the universe. That seems quite rational to me and far from hypocritical.
[…] “Let me ask you a question that you won’t want to answer” personal questions - Are you a Christian? or Do you believe in […]
As a 15 year old boy, about thirty years ago in the west of Ireland, my great aunt, aged in her eighties was in hospital. In the room next to her was a woman in her thirties who had three young children and who was dying horribly from cancer. I decided to take it upon myself to beg god to save this woman and prayed like never before that he would restore her to health and keep her for her family. Her horrible suffering continued until death and from that point on I have known that there is no such thing as a god. Science has since confirmed that any notion of a personal god is nothing more than fantasy. Love the show Pamela.
Hi Pamela
I was very happy to read Your article on Your Belief System. I agree totally with what You believe. I to am a Scientist (Analytical Chemist) and an amature astronomer. I have never had a conflict with Science and My Creator. I believe in the Laws of Nature and Science, but also believe that this was given to Us by a Higher Power, the Creator of the Universe.
I read a great book by Aileen O’Donoghue a professional Astronomer., The Sky Is Not a Ceiling: An Astronomer’s Faith.
You may want to read it in Your spare time. If You have any.
I really enjoy listening to You & Fraser and enjoy the times I read You in “Sky”.
Have a great weekend.
http://www.amazon.com/Sky-Not-Ceiling-Astronomers-Faith/dp/1570757038/ref=sr_1_37?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214587487&sr=1-37
Dick Sontag
Hi Pamela,
I love your comments and was a bit surprised by your believes. And I personally agree with some. I am a fan of the podcast you are in and love your way of explaining things.
When I personally explain my personal beliefs to friends, I almost always start with my doubts. You either believe the big bang was nothing exploding into everything thru chaos or guidance, and in my mind, neither sounds crazier then the other. I cant help but think, rationally, nothing should exist, but it does, we are here.
Hi Pamela:
I find it very comforting to find a scientist who is willing and brave enough to admit their faith in God. I find it equally comforting when Christians are willing to admit their faith in science.
Many of my Christian friends turn their noses when the subject of science comes up. I mention how they believe in science when they use their microwave, watch TV, or if one of their children becomes ill they will certainly have faith in science.
You see, the Bible was written by man with God’s inspiration. It’s a book with printed words. However, if you want to see God’s own handwriting look at the stars at night. Look at M13, the Andromeda galaxy, the Hubble Deep field. I view scientists not only as researchers and discoverers, but also as interpreters/translators–unwittingly or not, they are attempting to translate God’s handwriting into a form we can understand. The more science is able to explain, the more amazed I am at God’s creation.
I enjoy and appreciate your work with the podcast. You have an incredible gift to explain very complicated ideas–not to mention a great speaking voice!
Regards,
Dan
Hi Pamela,
It’s interesting to see someone choosing to be a Christian and a scientist at the same time. I don’t this is any real problem - since philosophically speaking, there’s always a corner in our thought that is unprovable (like string theory at the moment). While we might (might!) fill these gaps with scientific knowledge in the far future, for now humans are naturally inclined to fill these gaps with their own beliefs. It’s just human nature. However, take note that choosing to believe any belief system is still an arbitrary choice, which is what some commentators are arguing here.
By the way, I can’t believe this post is still attracting so many comments! (Do you think “Sparky”’s comment is a bit impolite on this post?) Unfortunately, it seems to have also attracted some creationists who totally misinterpreted your post, sigh.
I feel the FAQ section is a bit incomplete. There seems to be a few [archetypal] questions missing from the post.
Freiddie