I often see articles with titles such as, ‘Has science made God redundant’ (or religion redundant or faith redundant. Choose your variation on this theme)*. Once I would haven been firmly in the ‘Yes’ camp and while I feel a certain affinity for the ‘No’ argument, I’m more of a mind now to think that the two concepts are mutually exclusive (I think that this may harken to Stephen J Goulds ‘non-overlapping majesteria’ but I’ve not read his ideas for a while and need to refesh my understanding.).
Science has torn holes in the closed minded, fundamentalist versions of religion, that’s for certain. If you can believe in creationism (I’m not giving it a capital letter because it irritates me. If they can ignore science, I can ignore language conventions) and a young earth, then there’s just now where to go within the sphere of rational argument. Simply to believe in those things shows a certain, shall we say, head in the sand, ignorance of absolutely every piece of peer reviewed science in the last 100 years kind of thinking that part of me wants to admire just because of it’s sheer ballsi-ness.
To me, faith and science are two mutually exclusive terms. It’s like asking which is the more valid; pavolva or tom-tom drums. They have nothing to do with each other, so the comparison of the two is futile.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11.1)
Faith is an inner belief of our connection to the greater reality of the Universe. It can’t be proved or disproved by science because the two tenets are mutually exclusive.
Love exists, but can’t be quantified. So it is with faith.
(I think. See, here’s where I wish I we could all sit in a room together and discuss these ideas!)
*Here, for instance. I’d hate to base a whole post on an argument that doesn’t exist.