Where I went to college, to get a religious studies major, you had to do fairly in-depth work with both a western and an eastern religion. Mine were Christianity and Buddhism.

My observation was that Buddhism does not have quite as easy a time reconciling itself to science as is sometimes claimed. There are real tensions. Moreover, some varieties, such as Tibetan and Chan/Zen, have an easier time than more classical South Asian Mahayana Buddhism. As you might expect, the more systematic the philosophy gets, the more tension there is: imagine if you were a committed Kantian faced with the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry. You'd feel compelled to fight it—and some Kantians still do. Now imagine if Kantianism was a religion for hundreds of millions of people. You can see how any rationalized system is always going to have issues of tension with the advance of knowledge in other areas.

Christianity is actually pretty easy to reconcile with science. Start with the premise that God created all things, and all things were created through the agency of the Father, through the rational ordering of the Son, and brought to life through the Spirit. Among created things are Jesus himself, the writings attesting to him (and God's relationship to the Jewish people before the Incarnation), i.e., the Bible, along with the rest of creation—all the things that science studies. Can the Lord deny himself? Would he have one part of his creation contradict the others?

Of course, there are areas of apparent contradiction, and this is where the problem comes. At that point, three possibilities open: (1) Theologians can modify their views upon reflection on the findings of science; (2) scientists can modify their views, following reflection; or (3) admit that a clear contradiction exists, but that we are not God, and the real solution might not be found in our lifetimes. This is hard, because we want to know that we are right for real and no further reflection or experience is needed. But we don't live at the end of history. Only Jesus' coming will tell us we've gotten there. I keep my wick trimmed.

Mike Lockaby

Wouldn't reincarnation be somewhat easier to disprove, scientifically, than heaven? (The "carne" of reincarnation being testable in various ways)

I still don't understand the notion that science "kills religion". They have never been in conflict, to me.

JC Fisher

God is the fundamental mystery of life, the universe, and everything.

Theologians tell us that God is beyond time, beyond existence, beyond human knowledge. Then they tell us all about God. But all the narratives featuring God were written or told by people -- even as they've become richer in the retelling. Even the Gospels are secondary sources, at best; they seem to consist of narratives constructed around a meager list of sayings attributed to Jesus. They are, in part, provably unhistoric and obviously fantastic.

Sciences are narratives based on observation and evidence. Religions are tribal traditions based on tribal traditions. Science unfortunately demonstrates in some cases that the traditions of religion are wrong (geology, biology), so that is a conflict. Religion as such can be satisfied with uniting a group, providing a meaningful narrative, and encouraging constructive actions -- but it can't claim the sort of truth sought by science. The Fundamentalist error is to insist on scientific-type accuracy for its unhistorical narrative.

The lack of objective criteria is a problem for religion -- some varieties seem more logical or more in tune with how the world works than others, but they all exist on the level of opinion (usually called belief). Susan Russell is nicer than Martin Mimms, and I think her approach leads to a more attractive society, but both are arguing interpretations of words and practices in the tradition. "By their fruits ye shall know them" -- but even here, I like peaches and some seem to like crabapples. Tastes differ.

Some Café contributors want to confine our religious narratives to those that can be held to be rooted in the tradition. But the tradition is man-made, often wrong, and reflects another paradigm. I wish we could take stock of where we are now, and move on.

Look, I know there are problems with what I just posted. First, the Episcopal Church already has moved a bit to accommodate itself to present-day knowledge of how the world works, and found predators eager to cry "Heresy" and pounce on the property. But all this tiptoeing to stay within the tradition only raises the question of what we really believe. "We say the Creeds sincerely" doesn't convince the critics when you contravene Leviticus and Romans.

Second, I didn't acknowledge those in the church who feel themselves led or supported by something outside themselves. I may just be blind to their experience, as many straight people cannot imagine gay feelings. (They think that LGBTs are really like them but are being perverse, or difficult about it. St. Paul, for example.) One may think that what one doesn't experience doesn't exist -- but people really do differ. (Lefties, for instance.) But I did pursue religion for many years, and remain innocent of spiritual experience. Nor do those who report spiritual experience necessarily agree with one another. I don't see the common direction amongst those led.

Third, the tradition is rich in art and music. Those have contributed most of what I value in my experience of church. (That and the friendships.) Preaching is a sometimes thing: choirs regularly deliver.

Sorry: I didn't respond to Nicolas Knisely's request to discuss whether Christianity could find renewed existence as a philosophy -- I took one appealing sentence and ran with it. Now I've read the article Knisely quotes from, and I wish I'd just urged you to go read it. Paul Wallace says the sorts of things I was getting at, with more resonance and context.

My husband Gary loves the way the Dalai Lama simply waved away the existence of the mythical Mount Meru; he didn't say it existed but in a spiritual sense. Nope: "No Mount Meru!"

My husband also points out that one difference between Susan Russell and Martin Mimms is that Russell is more logically consistent -- her approach would apply to everybody. Evidence from biology supports her views, but the application of them remains opinion. But the best sort of opinion.

Oh boy. I hate people who take over a discussion, especially with irrelevancies.

Is there a way to understand Christianity as a philosophy in a similar manner that allows it to avoid the issue too?

I understand Christianity as my faith, not as a philosophy, and I have never viewed science and religion in conflict.

Now when the "New Atheists" declare, "There is no God", they are no more grounded in the scientific method than I am when I speak of my "experiences" of God. They're off on a flight of fancy themselves. The methodology of science can never come to a scientific conclusion as to whether God exists or not.

If my faith and my "experiences" of God seem to make me a better and happier person, what does it matter if they are, in fact, delusions, so long as, (and this is quite important) I do no harm to anyone else? I believe that my faith moves me to do more good to others, than if I were a person of no faith. I leave it to God (who many not exist) and to others to judge whether that is true or not in my case.

June Butler