musings

Faith and Science - opposed? Or do they need each other? And the beat goes on

On the matters of faith and other stuff….

Faith is a word that is thrown around a lot.  I wonder how many of us take it seriously.  If we think about it, it seems that we live and plan our lives by having faith.  For one, we have to have faith that there will be a life to look forward to – we really don’t know that, it is an act of faith that there will even be a tomorrow.

I know we have probability on our side.  The odds are there will be a tomorrow. That doesn’t change the fact that for many of us that will not be true. However, that is not going to stop us from doing what we have to do to get ready for the next day. 

Unspoken faith dominates our lives.  We couldn’t function without it.  The question has to be asked: “Why is it that faith is so often questionable as a concept?” I suspect it is because we live in the “age of science.” 

Hardly a day goes by when the new “high priests” of science proclaim with bursting pride that they deal with facts not faith.  “The technology now available makes it possible to know everything.” I might add they always add the caveat, “that what we don’t know now, we will know in the future.”  It is just a matter of time.

This is not just uttered as a statement of fact, but virtually as dogma, with a bit of anger thrown in for good measure.  I think religion has always been the boogie man for both people of science and religion.  While they don’t always admit it, they have waged a war for supremacy from the beginning of recorded civilization.

For years the churches dominated the argument.  They had more people on their side.  However, as the world modernized and more people drifted away from organized religion science began to make its move.  After all they had facts, not faith on their side.

Unfortunately, when you look at the early history of science its record is not much better than religion.  We are now led to believe that is no longer the case. I need to add my personal caveat here. I am not anti-science. I am not advocating for religious faith.  What I am advocating is an end to the arrogance of both religion and science toward each other.

Sooner or later both sides come to the need for a “first cause.” I know it is no longer fashionable to use that term.  But for the sake of our discussion it still works.  One could reasonably conclude that science has not removed causality as a concept; they have simply changed its name.

For the religious and people of faith it is inconceivable that there is not a creator or "spiritual force" that sustains the whole process of life.  Science now argues that beyond infinity there is nothing, and they can produce theoretical equations to suggest that a universe from nothing is possible.

However, if you look closely it seems to some of us that they have simply changed the name of nothing, and their nothing is really something.

Which brings us back to the subject of faith – and the beat goes on.

Brother Franco

We also recommend: http://pizzaonian.com

opd-914

Related articles

Another letter from #Jesus - Pizzaonian controversy continues - #religion #politics

Despite controversy, Brother Giovanni continues to publish his "Conversations with Jesus." #politics #religion

Conjectures of a recovering dilettante while traveling the road to Utopia - Are you a “person of faith?"

Faith in God and its consequences

 

So you are person of religious faith – do you ever wonder what that means – I do.  For starters, what faith?  Do you believe in one of the many orthodox religions?  Or is your faith a generalization about life and God in general? If so, I must confess that seems pretty vague to me.

In the assorted definitions of faith you find in various dictionaries, Merriam-Webster has one that intrigues me: “Faith: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof, complete trust.” Wow, that’s pretty strong. Do you know anyone who does this?

I can hear the answers now – “Of course, I do, not only do I know people like this; I am a person of faith myself.”  This of course begs the same question, what does that mean?

It seems that to feel that strongly about “your faith” you should have a very clear and concise concept of what your faith is about. We are not talking about vague generalities here; I mean a concept that can be stated simply and clearly understood.

Most of us will, sooner or later, survive this first step. The next step may be more difficult.  Faith bestows on us some benefit.  It gives us something we need and want.  This is why so many atheists accuse us, who proclaim a faith in a loving God, as something we made up to suit our personal needs. 

If we leave it at that, they would have a strong point. However, there is another part of faith that we all need to embrace and that is the necessary, deeply personal obligation that faith asks us to accept as our calling. This can bring with it some troubling revelations.

For one it requires sacrifice, a word that forces us to accept many uncomfortable contradictions about ourselves that have to be confronted and resolved. This is a troubling process because it tends to reveal our hypocrisy. 

Most of us do not see ourselves as hypocrites, and in the general sense, we are not. However, when we deal with the deepest meaning of our faith and the personal sacrifice it requires, we are forced to reflect and accept a much deeper course of action than we may have anticipated.

For those of you who have achieved this level of commitment and understanding there is little to offer you from this point, but for the rest of us who still struggle with this dilemma, the problem is real and the contradictions that we are forced to reconcile deeply felt.

What level of sacrifice are we willing to accept? Is there a more telling question than this to test the real level of our faith commitment? When asked in the abstract, it is an easy question.  However, it is the very nature of religious faith to eventually present the existential situation or crises that will tell you where you stand.

For most of us we will then learn if our belief in God is an implied contract or a covenant. As you know, a contract has conditions; a covenant is unconditional - without conditions.  The distinction between these two realities is so vast it defies description.

For Christians, it is inevitable to realize your God is asking for a convent – love and with sacrifice without conditions.   Perhaps this is what divides the rest of us from the saints.  They accepted the covenant as an act of love.  The rest of us will always have to depend to mercy as our last resort.

Again, this still begs the last question.  Is the acceptance of divine mercy nothing more than a last resort, a rationalization that allows us to continue to live a life of “cheap grace” - a term Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave us that will never allow the truth to be anything else but the authentic path we are all called to follow?

Brother Giovanni

We also recommend:   "The Pizzaonian"

Related articles

Orthodoxy as Primary to Morality

Faith, morals and political integrity, three subjects that most Americans believe they have.

Christian Light 2014 - how we choose to define the rules

On Advent, Bonhoeffer, and Waiting

Christianity may not change, but how we interpret Christianity probably will.

In a recent conversation with Brother Franco, he reminded me that we are living in a very exciting and fascinating time as we see the evolution of Christian thought expanding exponentially.  For many, this is troubling.  However, I agree with Brother Franco that we are standing at the doorway of a new threshold of understanding

We have all had to come to understand faith through the haze of doubt that has always plagued human existence. Faith in God, or for that matter, not believing in God, are assumptions we make from the sum total of our intuitive and actual experiences. 

I should make it clear these comments are not intended for those who have decided not to believe in a God.  The concern here is why so many believers, "people of “faith,” accept the concept that the God they believe in also chooses to hand down immutable rules that remain forever unalterable.

For them, to question the concept of "immutable" is considered sacrilege. They would be quick to point out that if what we believe is subject to our own interpretation and nothing else; virtually everything is up for grabs.   

From a more cosmic perspective, the word of God does not need to change. But why is it assumed that the way we interpret that word does not evolve as we evolve? Is it not equally relevant to assume that our personal knowledge is also evolving as we learn more about the world we inhabit? It seems contrary to our direct experience to think otherwise. And yet, this is what many of our fellow believers would have us think. * 

How do we resolve these differences with each other and still remain consistent with our individual realities? - Never, if we concentrate on the differences. As long as each side prefers to view all those who don’t share their reality as suspect, anger and determination to resist so-called contamination rules the day. This does not seem consistent with Christian values.

Why is it that our human nature seems to want to focus on what separates us rather than on what could bring us together? I suspect it is deeply tribal in nature, and is part of our instinctive reality - the same reality that allowed many of our ancestors to survive.  

Our ancestors knew people that were like them were less likely to be dangerous. It became critical to human survival to sense differences quickly. Being aware of our enemies became vitally important. As a result, we created “territories” that were safe. Obviously, we still do this physically, emotionally and spiritually.   

Is it reasonable to assume that we have mentally evolved to the extent that we can now understand that many of our legal, moral and cultural norms are merely codifications of our very real primal and instinctive natures? 

Judging how much of the world reacts, and the turmoil and suffering humans bring on themselves, apparently not. Nevertheless, that is little excuse to avoid being aware that evolutionary change is happening continually around us, and will shape the physical and spiritual environment we chose to call our own. 

As difficult as it is to accept, the meaning of the concept of tradition is changing. Tradition is often confused in meaning with the word "conventional." Traditional has always meant values. How these values are interpreted may change, but the meaning of the values being applied does not.

Take family as an example. While the values of the family have not changed, the convention of what constitutes “family” has. For generations, family meant “blood relations.” It has been obvious for years that concept no longer applies in all cases.  The same could be said for the institution of marriage. How these institutions are defined evolves, but what they represent in human values and traditions do not.

From a Christian faith perspective, we could not live in more exciting times.  As we see our knowledge of the cosmos evolving it provides us with more understanding of the dynamics of a living, personal God in all things.  As many have said before, we are now witnessing the evolution of “The Cosmic Christ.”

It is indeed a most exciting time to be alive!

Brother Giovanni

*Should this concept not apply to our interpretation of law as well?

The Cosmic Christ

Follow us on Twitter

We also recommend "The Pizzaoian"

 

Related articles

On the God delusion - Richard Dawkins has contributed a great service to all of us religious folks.

How do you define a "person of faith?"

"To be or not to be" - A Pizzaonian perspective on life and other stuff.

Bits and pieces on elections and other stuff - a Pizzaonian perspective

Pope Francis says Big Bang theory and evolution 'compatible with divine Creator'

Pope Francis on Board With Science: Evolution and the Big Bang Are Real, God's Not a "Magician"

Religious faith, tolerance or intolerance? - this question seems to be with us forever.

Religious faith, tolerance or intolerance? - this question seems to be with us forever. Can one assume a fundamental belief in a deity that proclaims to be the one God for all and still have tolerance for non-believers?

Obviously, when you look at the world’s condition and the misery and horror caused by political institutions that use religion as their weapon, particularly with what is happening currently in the Middle East, you wonder if this question will ever be resolved.

One ray of hope is what is happening within certain Christian communities. As the laity becomes more secularized, they exert more influence on how their religion is practiced.

A perfect example is what happened recently in Ireland*. Probably the most Catholic country in the world, they recently voted to legalize nationally, same-sex marriages.

This is a total contradiction to what they are told to believe from their religious leaders. If we are to believe the laity is the body of their God, and they are part of that body representing a world community, it is time for the leadership to take serious notice.

Perhaps this is how God speaks in the world, not through hierarchical leadership, but through the voice of the faithful. If this is the case, there is much hope for the future. It seems that in all systems, political or religious, the people have to drag their leadership kicking and screaming into the present time.

Sister Veronica

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

We also recommend   "Ask Brother Giovanni"

Related articles

Christians, Agnostics and Atheists

Save us from those who believe they were appointed to save us

The American election - reality show or real life?

The immutable word of God versus the linear evolution of human consciousness

Conjectures of a recovering dilettante on the road to Utopia – Christian responsibility

The message to individual Christians today could never be clearer: As a Christian, you have an obligation to see that your government serves the poor and those most in need of compassion and help.  

It seems that some consider this an “entitlement” philosophy. They make the assumption that any government program that creates a service to help people to take advantage of opportunity is wrong.  

In fact, if the service rendered to people in need creates dependency and nothing else, there is much merit to this opinion. 

This gets to the heart of the problem. When you create a government program whose intent is compassion and service to those most in need, the creation of the service does not end the Christian’s responsibility.  

Equally important is the follow through necessary to see that the program works. 

This is the step where everything falls apart and provides the fuel that drives the antigovernment, conservative’s position forward.

This again raises the question: What are “people of faith” doing about it?

Brother Franco

We also recommend "The Pizzaonian"

Service - first to yourself - or to others?

 

 

 

 

 

If there is a secret to creating the so-called good life, it is having something to look forward to. However, this is only the first step. What you are looking forward to should have significant meaning not only to you, but also to those you serve - please note the word “serve.”   

What often gets lost today is that most meaningful activity involves serving someone else other than seeing to your own needs. With all the advantages our society provides, there are still caveats. For one, we are developing a narcissistic culture that permeates everything we do.   

There was a time when “being the best you can be” meant a life of service to others. I am sure there are many who will disagree with this, but I think the facts speak for themselves. Today, service usually means taking care of your needs first.

Of course, this is always well disguised as an altruistic endeavor. The premise is that by serving your personal needs first, you will be better prepared to minister to the needs of others later.   

There is something to be said for the proverb “Physician, heal thyself,” but where is the line between selfishness and altruism.   

That is for each of us to decide. How are you doing?  

Brother Franco

We also recommend: GIOVANNIANDFRANCO.COM

Related articles

Demagoguery when will you cease to amaze? A Pizzaonian perspective on American politics

Advertising - To create the herd, you must first create the individual

If you have choices in life, consider yourself fortunate - 150 word reflections

Reality versus intent - Dogma - in a constantly changing world

100 word reflections - It is everywhere - It is pervasive - virtually everyone's addiction to social media

Creativity - to be or not to be?

June 2015

Today I would like to explore more ideas on how each of us can become more creative. I need to remind everyone that this is an exploration only.  I make no pretensions that I have all the answers, or that we are going to solve every problem as take this journey.

I am proceeding from the assumption that we are all naturally creative and that somewhere in the process of our daily living; we lose this natural ability. And that does not mean we are automatons, simply going through our regular routine. Most of us still act as intelligent people and perform the necessary functions for a reasonably successful life.   

However, as we mature, the creative static that is always in our consciousness grows louder, and demands to be heard. The status quo is no longer good enough, and we know we need to make changes if we are to become the person we were meant to be.  

We also know that the changes we need to make will only come about if we become more creative in our approach to every aspect of our lives. For those who have experienced this, little explanation is necessary. We know this nagging sensation that something is not right. 

Before we can continue we need to define what being creative is and if there is actually a process that can be standardized for all of us. I’m not sure there is. So we need to proceed cautiously from this point and make sure we understand everything that is discussed can only be applied individually and by no means presumes there is some magic formula at work here. There is not. 

First, we must realize that being truly creative is rare. There are only so many Michelangelo’s, Leonardo da Vinci’s and Einstein’s. This type of creativity belongs to the rarefied few. So where does that leave you and me? For most of us, creativity will be defined as what is new to us if not necessarily to the world.    

Each hour of everyday we discover something new. This may apply only to us and no one else. However, this does not diminish in any way these events. Newness for us may be simply rediscovering the old in a different way. That is often enough to give us a creative insight into a more imaginative world. So as we said in our previous episodes, creativity begins by being observant and habitually conscious of what you are experiencing. It has been said quite simply: “We must always focus on the present to be fully appreciative of the world we know.”   

While this statement is easily understood, we also know that it is often impossible to do. However, what we all can do is increase our conscious effort to see the subtlety in the obvious. As we come to appreciate what is in front of us rather than constantly being distracted by other thoughts and events, we begin to recapture our innate creativity.

So begin this very minute to be more observant of the moment and appreciate the significance of the wonders that surround you.  No matter what your situation, you can start by being aware of your gift of consciousness.

Next:  How do we define creativity within the context our personal experience?

Brother Giovanni

Related articles

What is it about the creative process that becomes so frustrating?

We all hide in the shadow of our consciousness

For years we confused craft and technique with artistic talent - that perspective no longer prevails.

Criticizing the critic is a "no-win" situation for any creator. You never criticize the critic!

How we choose to define the rules - Christian Light 2014

November 2014

Christian Light 2014

We all want something for nothing and when it comes to Christians we make no exceptions.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer used the term cheap grace and it fits nicely.  We all want forgiveness and salvation but we want it to come in convenient packages – in other words to come cheaply without too heavy a price

If we are to take the New Testament seriously and follow what it asks us to do we are going to have to reconsider how we live our lives. It has been said the poor would not be with us if we all followed and did what Christianity asks of us. Obviously, that is not the case.

This needs some elaboration and discussion since we know the example that Jesus left for us to follow on Calvary isn’t what most of us have in mind.  If there is one thing that distinguishes the saints from the rest of us is that they take the message of Calvary seriously and follow it. That’s what makes them saints. Where does that leave the rest of us? 

Somewhere in our evolution to modern Christianity, the rules didn’t change, but how we chose to define the rules, did. And that is where the trouble starts. Somehow reciting and proclaiming dogma replaced following the Cross.

To be fair, I am sure that from the beginning, most Christians did not completely embrace the fullness of grace they were given.  It was there for the taking.  The catch was, of course, to let it happen and evolve to the destiny you were to follow regardless of where it required you to go.  For most of us this required courage beyond human understanding since it would lead to our personal Calvary.  

Each person’s Calvary may be different, and certainly they do not all lead to martyrdom.  That fact does not make it any easier. The embracing of our personal Calvary means facing situations that may be beyond our ability to endure. That is where faith, love and grace begin to flower within each of us if we travel the road we are meant to take.

However, while most of us will not face martyrdom, we all face the need to embrace the sacrifice we are asked to make.  For each of us this requires accepting without condition the fullness of love for Jesus and what he stands for. Christianity is not a reasonable religion.  It calls for great personal sacrifice and willingness to accept in faith the path your belief demands.

And what better example do we have than the life of Jesus.  As He realized the totality of whom he was and what he was asked to do, even He could not accept initially the agony of sacrificing himself.  While alone in the garden, in those excruciating moments, as He began to understand what was about to happen and the personal agony He would endure, the agony became unbearable. And to make it worse, a loving father was asking him to accept his destiny not only without resistance but to accept it with the fullness of love and understanding.

From the readings in the New Testament, you can feel the final acceptance that Jesus commits himself to, and with that acceptance the embracing of the unconditional love for His father, and the belief that his father would always be there beside him.  This is truly one of the most remarkable moments in Christian history.

We are not all asked to be Jesus, or are we?  It is easy to water down the Christian commitment by allowing ourselves to believe that what Jesus was asked to do and sacrifice was unique to Him.  Certainly, He is the “Cosmic Christ” and we are not.  But does that allow us to make our commitment any less?

This is the question each of must face and eventually answer.  Without prayer, love and faith, the answer will always elude us.

Brother Franco, commenting for the Pizzaonian Monasteries, Pizzaonia

We also recommend   GiovanniandFranco.com 

 

THE PIZZAONIAN

 

 

Related articles

Another letter from Jesus - McDonalds, faith and other stuff - #faith

A primer - eight basic points for entrepreneurial demagoguery - Pizzaonian Vocational Institute

On the God delusion - Richard Dawkins has contributed a great service to all of us religious folks.

Bits and pieces on elections and other stuff - a Pizzaonian perspective

Is there anything worse in American politics than a President who is ahead of his time?

Conjectures of a recovering dilettante - thoughts while attending a marketing meeting - Creativity and other stuff

How do you define a "person of faith?"