Gospel of Karin

A couple of days ago, Brian Greene of string theory fame contributed an op-ed for the New York Times called “Put a Little Science in Your Life.”

The subtext is overflowing with opportunities for interpretation about ethics, the place of humans in the universe, the nature of reality, theories of knowledge, and much, much more.

I responded with a letter to the editor (couldn’t resist!), which the Times ran today. See the last letter on the page.

Some questions:

Why does Greene assume that our engagement with the world as children makes us “little scientists.” Why not little poets, authors, artists, ethicists, or (gasp!) theologians?

Why does awe and wonder for the universe make one a scientist first?    

Photo: Henry David Thoreau, courtesy, Wikimedia Commons.

I came across this comment today, which was posted in response to an article called “Faith of Our Fathers” by Timothy Egan:

The author lays out the quote “Religion has always been about faith and a certain degree of mythology” as if it were revelation. Subsequent sentences show that the author doesn’t know what a myth is. A myth is not something “untrue” in a theological context. It is something that explains the way things are. Theologians talk about the creation myth without implying a lack of truth.

A legend is the tale of a great hero of the past.

So the story of the parting of the Red Sea, and the story of the miracle at the wedding in Canaa should be called “legends” if one isn’t approaching them from the standpoint of belief.

A myth would be “how the leopard got his spots.” A legend would be “how Ulysses got home from the Trojan War.”

Both myths and legends can be full of truth, more true than the mere photographing and cataloging of observable facts.

— Posted by WDannen

I found the distinction the author makes between myth and legend to be quite interesting. I do, however, wonder whether you can make such a clean separation of the two. The legend of Ulysses, for example, says something about “the way things are” from a certain cultural perspective. But it also gives us insight into contemporary human experience.

As a theologian, I read Biblical stories keeping in mind that they say something about the ways things were and, to an extent, about the way things are, although, both are always interpreted from the standpoint of our values and presuppositions. And so, I think the author may be oversimplifying the role of the theologian. Still, I find the distinction useful for thinking about the significance of Biblical narratives.

I also think the author’s last sentence is spot-on correct. Myths and legends can lead us to a more thorough grasp of what is real, beyond what we experience through our basic senses. This is one reason why I find so-called literal readings of the Bible so troubling. They miss the deeper meanings, complexities, and beauty of the texts.

For a related discussion, see “Seeing the Sacred.”

Photo: My cat, Shimsi, pondering the difference between legend and myth.

On December 2, The New York Times ran an op-ed entitled “Giving You Christmas When You Want It” by Simon Doonan, Creative Director of Barneys New York.

I sent a letter to the editor in response, which the Times published today. You can read it here: “The True Meaning of Christmas,” or here:

“Giving You Christmas When You Want It,” by Simon Doonan (Op-Ed, Dec. 2), attributes our perennial holiday shock to a sense that the spiritual dimension of Christmas has been lost.

But I believe it has more to do with a feeling that the holiday season marks the passing of yet another year.

We wonder, where has the time gone? What have I done with my life? In other words, it’s not Christmas that sneaks up on us. It’s mortality.

A little holiday shopping is great fun. Too much numbs our innate sense that life is too precious to waste in the mall.

Note, I’m a frequent letter to the editor writer. My reasons are as follows:

• It’s a great way to engage with topics that interest you.
• The letters to the editor section is popular–you reach a lot of people.
• It’s fun to see your name in print!

Happy Holidays,
Karin

This essay is a continuation of three prior posts:

Genes, Genesis and God: Introduction
Genes, Genesis and God: Natural Genesis
Genes, Genesis and God: Cultural Genesis

As mentioned in the introduction, Holmes Rolston does not explicitly describe how science and religion might come together in dialogue, however, I have culled out what I believe to be two important spaces for conversation. These include the following:

• Science and religion can meet in the recognition and appreciation of the build up of value over evolutionary and cultural history.
• Science and religion each represent an important part in the story of the genesis of value. Science represents natural history. Religion represents the emergence of culture.

A deepening of value has occurred throughout evolutionary history. According to Rolston, an advantage of Darwinian theory is that it has demonstrated that nature actually does have value: evolutionary science has discovered that nature is “red in tooth and claw,” while also discovering “the value in teeth in claws” (360). Biologists are witnesses to this value and to the amazing diversity of life on Earth. Rolston tells us that most biologists, including hard-core neo-Darwinists like E.O. Wilson and Daniel Dennett, are not immune to the spiritual force of nature; in Dennett’s words, ‘the world is sacred’ (362). Hence Rolston’s claim that the “secular evolves into the sacred” (Rolston 362). Ernst Mayr is even more succinct: ‘Most biologists are religious’ (362). Nature, however is not self-explanatory, and biology provides only partial insight into its value.

Photo: “Dialogue” by Doc Ross. copyright Doc Ross. New Zealand Photography.

Read the rest of this entry »