I believe that there is a natural and a supernatural element to reality. Science can explain a great deal of natural phenomena, but not all--for instance, the existence of "dark matter" in the galaxy is assumed due to the nature of the orbits of stars, but by no means do we understand it, and stellar orbits within our galaxy are relatively easy to observe and measure. The origin of cellular life is equally a mystery despite our understanding of cellular structure and function. Maybe our understanding of these will improve in the future, but the point is that science sometimes cannot answer even basic questions about physical realities.
Good and evil are just as "real", (perhaps even more so) but you can only get so far in trying to explain them physiologically, psychologically, or through evolution. Assuming that you feel at least some responsibility for your actions and believe there is a degree of freedom in the choices you make, how else can we explain conscience and virtue? A supernatural explanation is the only satisfying one. But in allowing for the supernatural, we acknowledge something that does not rely on nature for its existence. Aquinas referred to this as a first cause. This cause encompasses the natural world as well, since without it, nature could not be.
So can we reconcile these two realities-the natural and supernatural, science and religion? Certainly! Our human experience demands that we do. But when we try to understand phenomena that have no convincing natural explanations (for example, the origin of the universe), shouldn't we allow for at least the possibility of supernatural ones? What we cannot reconcile is not religion and science, but religion and materialism. Allowing for only natural causes at the exclusion of the supernatural, or trying to limit the divine to the role of spectator in the physical universe closes our minds to the true splendor of the natural world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment