We should maintain that if an interpretation of any word in any religion leads to disharmony and does not positively further the welfare of the many, then such an interpretation is to be regarded as wrong; that is, against the will of God, or as the working of Satan or Mara.
Buddhadasa Bikkhu, a Thai Buddhist Monk
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Fire is a wonderful example. Dangerous. Deadly, Painful. Useful. Necessary. Warming. Life-saving. Chemical. Destructive and Creative. Spiritual. Fires destroy homes and take lives, but they also provide quiet evening moments of dancing beauty. No camping experience is complete without evenings spent silently watching the flames of a well-constructed, friendly campfire. There is indeed a spirituality to such moments, a spirituality symbolized by the burning bush of Exodus. Historically, many Reformed traditions have featured the burning bush on their logos (see here), including the current symbol of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The United Methodist Church also features a flame on its logo. Since ancient times, we Christians have associated the Holy Spirit and spirituality with the tongues of flame that rested over Jesus' followers at Pentecost.
Fire, thus, embodies and symbolizes the truth that "reality" is richly textured with levels of meaning and experience. It provides moments for meditation, for coming to rest in a quiet place. Fire symbolizes for us our deepest religious experiences. And, there are times when the Spirit burns in the hearts of people—burns so deeply that western New York is still known as "the burned over district." In the real world, things are not one thing.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Three thoughts: first, G.A. meets too often. It is a blessing that it no longer meets yearly (a change that took place in 2004), but once every two years is still too often. Every time G.A. meets, all of the scabs of our denominational wounds get ripped off, every controversy is put back on the front burner, and more tremors of unease ripple their way through the churches. The future of the denomination does not lie in the G.A. anyway, so why keep doing this to ourselves? Second, it is now only a matter of time until yet another significant number of more conservative churches leave. The next trigger will be when PC(USA) decides, as it surely will, to redefine marriage as being between two individuals rather than between a man and a woman. That decision will inevitably cost us many (hundreds of?) congregations. There is no sense worrying about it. Again, the future of our churches (the ones that stay) will not be materially affected by those that leave. Third, what matters is the renewal of local church life. The higher echelons of the denomination don't seem to have much to contribute to that renewal, and (as has been said here before) we need to focus our energies and attention on the task of renewal and put aside worry over denominational structures, which have become a political football field for demonstrating our lack of love for each other across ideologies. We need to move on.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
The moonwalk that Armstrong shared with fellow astronaut, Buzz Aldrin, brought to a happy close the otherwise conflicted, violent, and divisive decade of the Sixties. And, perhaps, it marked an important step forward in our race's evolution from a planetary species to an interplanetary one. That depends, of course, on whether we recapture the dream for the frontiers of space that motivated Armstrong and Aldrin's generation. Still, we remember the dream, the NASA dream team of thousands that took us to the moon, and the daring accomplishment of the first human beings to walk there. And we remember the Mission Commander of the Apollo 11 flight that took us to the moon, Neil Armstrong. No matter how far we go in the centuries to come, no one will ever be first again.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children's lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting with their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.
Source: The Peace of Wild Things
Saturday, August 25, 2012
|First Presbyterian Church, Lowville, NY|
Worship in America's largest churches is generally informal, emotional, satisfying, joyful, well-led, well-done, and technologically competent. The message promotes a superficial theology, conventional moral standards, and a positive outlook on life. According to the research, people come away from worship services at megachurches feeling that their spiritual needs had been met, again especially on an emotional level. The researchers observe that there is a drug-like quality to megachurch worship, but it is a "good drug." They also note that the megachurches have huge resources for conducting worship, which give them a significant advantage over smaller congregations.
It is not quite true, however, that smaller congregations cannot compete. Lowville, NY, does not have a megachurch, but there is today a church group that is apparently growing rapidly, attracting younger families, and offers a worship experience something like the megachurch experience. It has dynamic, attractive worship leadership, sings energetic songs, and seems to capture something of the drug-like quality of megachurch worship. Thus, the megachurch experience is within the grasp of some smaller congregations as well—indeed, all megachurches started out as small churches.
The flip side is this. Such churches tend to be anti-gay, anti-abortion, and conservative. They may be strong on conventional morals, but that does not mean that they are strong on justice. And while a growing number of church goers prefer them, the numbers of church growers are dwindling. Growing numbers of Americans reject them and all other forms of worship as well.
The challenge that haunts smaller, less conservative churches is to discover forms of worship that are less superficial, more thought-filled, and also emotionally satisfying. The drug-like quality of mega-worship is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, and it obviously is attractive to a growing percentage of the declining church population. One does wonder, however, how much it has to do (or fails to have to do) with Christ. All of us who worship him have to keep in his own words as quoted in Matthew, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'" (Matthew 7:21-23, NRSV)
What some of us are looking for is worship that is emotionally satisfying, joyful, theologically insightful & challenging, inspirational, and built on a deeper appreciation of social justice.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Akin is at it again, as most readers know. His use of the term "legitimate rape" and stated belief that women who are "legitimately raped" seldom become pregnant has set off a fire storm, primarily on the left but even from members of his own party. There were widespread calls from within the Republican Party for his resignation, while Democrats have been keeping their fingers crossed in hopes that he would refuse. And Akin has. He issued an apology, and has avowed that he intends to fight on. We can assume that he thinks that he can wait this one out too. The dust will settle. The media will go on to something else. MSNBC commentators will find something else to rant about. And he can resume his potent challenge for the senate seat in Missouri.
Let's face it. He may be right. But, somethings are different his time. In the short run, he has given the Democrats an opportunity to force Romney off message yet again. Every day, every week that they can divert him from his attacks on President Obama's fiscal record is a good day, a good week for the Democrats. He has also managed to reignite the "Republicans are anti-women" theme, which seemed to have gone quiet. And he has drawn attention to the Republican Party's radical anti-abortion stance, which seeks to criminalize abortions for virtually every case—including rape and incest. Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, is among those suddenly thrown on the defensive. This is not, we can be sure, the lead-up to their national convention that the Republican leadership planned for. It is not the way they wanted to go into the fall campaign, which begins in just days now. And Rep. Akin's refusal to resign has been a gift from heaven for the Democrats, who can continue to bring this sore subject up, time and again. In the long run, it may not matter—but, it adds to the sense that the Republicans don't have their house in order and are doing everything they can to blow the coming presidential election. We'll see.
The point here, however, is a different one. Mr. Akin, it turns out, is a committed fundamentalist Christian and even has theological training. The reason he steps on these land mines is partly because he is a true believer who feels an obligation to speak the truth as he sees it. He honestly believes that liberals including even liberal Christians hate God. He honestly believes that there are "illegitimate" rapes and that few women suffer serious consequences from being raped—or, he did. Maybe he has actually learned differently from his gaffe. Like many of the tea party right, he is engaged in a spiritual war against the enemies of God, which include his political opponents. One wonders when the large majority of Americans will realize that the the threat of radicalism does not come from the left these days—certainly not from a pragmatic President who has upset the liberal wing of his party on more than one occasion. It is the radical right that is the real threat to our democracy today, and Rep. Akin is a prime example of that threat.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
|Cameron van der Burgh|
That being said van der Burgh deserves credit as well. Crouse quotes American swimmer,Brendan Hansen, who finished third behind van der Burgh as saying, “I give him credit for actually having the guts to come out and say something and be honest because maybe that’s what it’s going to take for the organizations running swimming to use the technology at their disposal to enforce the rules.” There is evidently some risk that van der Burgh could lose his medal because he spoke out. Hansen himself stated that he did not cheat even though he knew it would cost him the gold medal. He told reporters, “I wasn’t raised to cheat. It’s not something I practice.”
The Olympic gold medal is a potential idol, awaiting the worship of those who seek it. Crouse treated it as such, worshipped it, and the inevitable result was his worship of the idol cheapened him. He does not deserve what he won, and he clearly knows it. Whatever pride or satisfaction he might take in it is tainted. Hansen, on the other hand, can take pride not only in his bronze medal, but also in the fact that he overcame not only other competitors to achieve it. He also overcame temptation. His bronze medal is golden. Van der Burgh's gold medal is worth less than tin. His honesty does deserve credit, but his gold is still worth much less than Hansens' bronze.
That is what false worship of human-made idols does to us. Idolatry cheapens us and taints us. There is only one "object" worthy of our worship, God. We approach God and engage in worship only as we are able to put away our own agendas. That is hard to do, damnably hard. Fortunately, we aren't called to be perfect at it. We are called to keep trying.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Editorial on the 2012 PC(USA) General Assembly
The Presbyterian Outlook
Saturday, August 18, 2012
1. From Critique & Pick-apart to Celebrate & Pick-up -- From Critical Thinking to Creative Thinking
2. From Pyramid to Pancake; From Ladder to Web -- From Cog & Wheel Machine to Organic Garden
3. From Representation to Participation
4. From "Here-I-Stand" Churchianity (Maintenance) to "There-We-Go" Christianity (Mission);
5. From Eye to Ear -- From Structure to Rhythm -- From Seeing to Hearing
6. From Printed Page to Screen -- From Consecutive to Concurrent -- From Linear to Field
7. From Control to Out-of-Control -- From Program to Manifestation
8. From Authority Structures to Relational Structures
9. From "Does it Make Sense" to "Was it a Good Experience?"
10. From Excellence to Authenticity -- From Performance to Realness
11. From Theology of Giving to Theology of Receiving
12. From Hi-Fi Stereo to Surround-Sound Spirituality
13. From Planning to Preparedness
14. From Politics to (Bio-)Economics to Culture Clash
15. From Church Growth to Church Health
16. From Standing Committees to Moving Teams -- From Independence to Interdependence
17. From Denominations to Tribes
18. From Mass to Demassed Structures (eg. From Congregational to Cellular)
19. From Illustration to Animation
20. From Think Big and Simple to Think Small and Complex
21. From Boundary-Living to Frontier/Border Living
22. From Christendom Culture to Pre-Christian Mission Fields
23. From Pastoral Care to Ministry Development
24. From "Re" words to "De" words
Friday, August 17, 2012
In the West inclusive thinking is becoming ever more popular, and exclusive thinking is less and less acceptable. The main reason is the slow disappearance of logical thinking. When two statements are contradictory, one or none can be true. But they cannot both be true. Let’s say I claim ‘there is a wall over there’. Somebody responds ‘don’t be so fundamentalist, I have the right to the opinion there is no wall-actually, wall’s don’t exist’. I’ll happily grant the right to that opinion. But I’ll only start to consider this person as a serious participant conversation when he walks through the for him non-existent wall.The author has already explained that Christianity is an exclusive religion, which means there are right beliefs and wrong beliefs; Buddhism is an inclusive one, which means that it can see incompatible beliefs as being parallel to each other. In the quoted paragraph, our exclusivist friend makes it clear that a Christian faith based on the exclusive claims of Christ is logical and serious. Inclusive thinking is illogical, lacks seriousness, and apparently can even insist on something as silly as believing a wall that clearly does exist doesn't exist.
The example of the wall is an unfortunate choice, because those who do not accept an exclusive gospel also do not reject physical realities, such as walls. In fact, we are far more likely to accept such physical realities as evolution and an age of roughly 14 billion years for the universe. Our exclusivist friend is more likely to reject evolution and think that the universe is only a few thousand years old. The example, however, also indicates how illogical inclusive thinking is to our friend. It is so illogical to him that he apparently honestly thinks that inclusive thinkers are able to believe patently silly things. They are not just illogical, then. They also have a loose grip on reality.
Our friend is not being perverse. He is not being stubborn. He is not ignorant or foolish. He lives in a different universe, one in which black-and-white, I'm-right-you-are-wrong thinking on matters of faith makes perfect sense. It has a millennia old heritage and the backing of passage after passage in scripture. The rest of his brief article also makes it clear that he feels under attack by those who see things inclusively.
In fact, the wall is there, the universe evolves and is tens of billions of years old, and exclusivists are not kindly lovers of humanity any more than those who see things more inclusively. We look at reality differently, and it is apparently impossible to bridge the chasm between our two ways of thinking. For what it is worth and as one who struggles to be inclusive, open, and accepting, however, from an inclusive perspective it is not unusual of exclusive thinkers to think that those who disagree with them are illogical, prone to accepting silly ways of thinking, lack seriousness, have a loose grip on reality, and are aggressive. Exclusivists must, by the necessity of their own logic, reject the possibility of dialogue across the chasm. For them, compromise is an ugly word. And, although they do not see or feel it, their way of thinking is frequently intolerant and aggressive—at times prone to forcing its beliefs on others because it is right and those who disagree are wrong. As a rule, it can also be disdainful of and disrespectful toward any thinking not its own. As I say, the chasm between these two ways of thinking is so deep, so wide that it appears unbridgeable.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Indeed, in his study of the relationship of spirituality to the good life, Dr. van Dierendonck did not define spirituality for those who filled out his questionnaire. It was whatever they thought it was, which meant that in effect he did not study spirituality so much as the popular usage of the word "spirituality". His informants associated the word with a good life, which is hardly surprising in a nation that still deeply values religion.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
So, what is "spirituality"? In a research paper entitled, "Spirituality as an Essential Determinant for the Good Life, its Importance Relative to Self-Determinant Psychological Needs," Dr. Dirk van Dierendonck, associate professor of organizational behavior at the Rotterdam School of Management, defines spirituality in this way,
Spirituality is usually associated with living by your inner truth to produce positive attitudes and relationships in your life (Hawley 1993). Deﬁnitions of spirituality deal with the ultimate goal in life, the experience of a transcendent dimension that gives meaning to existence, and the capacity to experience the sacred (Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003). Spirituality is associated with a focus on the essence of life, creativeness, spirit, mystical experiences, and new age beliefs (Zinnbauer et al. 1997; Mitroff and Denton 1999). Spirituality signiﬁes the inner attitude of living life directly related to the sacred. This deﬁnition is directly related to what Pargament (2002, p. 169) calls the essence of spirituality, that is ‘‘the process through which people discover, conserve and rediscover the sacred.’’688 D. van DierendonckSpirituality, that is, is a way of living, an experience, and a process. Those are three very different things and when taken together are very broad and inclusive of virtually all of life. Drinking (as in alcohol) can be a way of living, an experience, and a process, but we don't usually associate it with spirituality—quite the opposite. Engaging in a profession or being an enthusiastic supporter of a sports team involve ways of living, experiences, and processes. So the question is, spirituality is a way of living, an experience, and a process involving what?
Van Dierendonck's list of "whats" is long and just about as broad. Spirituality involves inner truth, positive attitudes, relationships, ultimate goals, the transcendent, meaning, the sacred, the essence of life, creativeness, spirit, mystical experiences, and new age beliefs. On reflection, that is about as clear as mud. What precisely does "inner truth" mean? Are there inner and outer truths? What distinguishes them? Or, again, what are "ultimate goals"? How do they differ from other kinds of goals? What makes them ultimate? What, indeed, do we mean here by "ultimate"? The "essence of life" is particularly nebulous. Does life have an "essence"? What might it be? The concept of "spirit" is complex and involves another set of questions. What spirituality is about, thus, is unclear, profoundly so.
The upshot of it all is that those who intend to study spirituality empirically face a daunting task beginning with all of the difficulties involved in simply defining the concept of spirituality in a way that is both inclusive of human spiritual experience and precise enough to actually describe something that is not simply another name for "the good life." Just deciding the relationship of spirituality to the religious concept of "the sacred" is going to be difficult and involve deciding whether or not spirituality has to do with the divine or not. Is there a non-theistic or secular spirituality? If so, what is it and what links it to concepts of "the spirit"?
Studying spirituality is not like studying religion or belief systems or ritual practices. Religions are institutions. Belief systems are forms of ideology. Ritual practices involve human behavior. These things can be defined concretely and studied empirically. Spirituality is something different, and my point for this posting is that van Dierendonck's attempts to define it leave him with nothing that can actually be defined with the precision a scientific approach requires.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Sunday, August 12, 2012
|P. M. Yingluck Shinawatra|
In an interview with ABC before the election last year , below, Khun Yingluck spoke of her goals for the nation and articulated a political philosophy that is built on reconciliation and governing for the whole nation. It is worth remembering that she has no prior political experience and has widely been seen as her exiled brother's "cat's paw". If you have six minutes, the clip is worth listening to, especially in our own supercharged political environment in the U.S.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
|Flag of Iraq|
Friday, August 10, 2012
|Early photo of its surrroundings from Curiousity|
God would be still greater, we would be yet smaller. And it would be clearer still that our theologies, all of them, are but incredibly inadequate, immeasurably humble attempts to grasp the Ungraspable. Those who continue to try to build their theologies on certainties and absolutes rather than humility in the face of God's wonderfully not-at-all-absolute reality will find themselves even more isolated from the real universe science is discovering. It is wiser and truer to God's creation to build our theologies on the solid rock of humility and spirituality. Our faith as Christians would then be that as apparently insignificant as we are God has not left us without witnesses, Christ being that witness for those us who put our trust in him. Amen.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
|Source: Wikipedia, "Chicken"|
Chickens are about as common a thing as there is in our world today, but we don't even know where they came from for sure and probably never will. Does it matter? Well, maybe not in the larger scheme of things, but then again if we want to understand how our world came to be as it is today the development and spread of such a common and useful life form may well contribute to our understanding of more significant things.
It is amazing how little we know about the world around us. In an age when knowledge is growing exponentially, it can seem like we know a lot. But, we really don't. We're still just beginning to explore the wonderful reality around us. Humility in large doses is our only due. Amen.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Monday, August 6, 2012
This kind of narrow, zealous, and unloving thinking has a long, "rich" history. Another and much more important manifestation was the destruction of Pacific coast totem poles by 19th century missionaries who assumed without any study that the totem poles are elements of a false religion. They amount to devil worship. A website dedicated to totem poles, totempole.net, addresses this belief, writing (here),
Totem poles were never objects of worship; the association with "idol worship" was an idea from local Christian missionaries. The same assumption was made by certain early European explorers, but later explorers such as Jean-François de La Pérouse noted that: totem poles were never treated reverently; they seemed only occasionally to generate allusions or illustrate stories; and were usually left to rot in place when people abandoned a village.Still, the missionaries tried to stamp out not only the use of totem poles but also the cultures that produced them. And, evidently, they nearly succeeding. Fortunately, however, according to an Al Jazeera report (see the video clip below), the art of making totem poles is experiencing a rebirth.
This revival of an ancient art is important from an artistic perspective and from a cultural one. I know from personal experience with tribal folks in Southeast Asia that indigenous cultures give deep meaning to those who share in a local culture. They find their identity in their language, cuisine, art, folkways, and beliefs. At the same time, exposure to the their culture enriches the lives of others. All of this is one manifestation of God's creation of our world and us. We are created to live in culture, and the more of it, the greater diversity of it, the better. Amen.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
|Bill Bergen (1878-1943)|
His claim to fame rests entirely on how wonderfully awful he was as a hitter. I'm not really sure that the lesson of his life is that "if you are going to be bad at something, be spectacularly bad." And it doesn't make the least bit of difference to Bill or anybody who knew him personally that he is still being talked about, they all being dead and long gone. If there has to be a lesson, more likely it is that our strengths can be used to outweigh or at least to balance our weaknesses. A person of limited abilities thus can still get into the big leagues, make a contribution, and be remembered not only as the worst hitter of all times but also as one very good catcher. He could only be "spectacularly bad" if he was also actually quite good.
But why ruin the fun of history with lessons? It may be a useless fact that a hundred year's ago winning ball games depended on the "finer arts" of base running and bunting, but it is just fun to know that it was so—once upon a time, a long time ago. And fun to know that a Bill Bergen graced our world with his presence.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
So, why proceed if the benefit to public health will be marginal at best? The reason is that tiny steps like these are just a beginning, and we have to start somewhere. In some ways, the debate over measures like this may be as important as the number of calories involved. It really is a case of cigarettes again, and just as in that case so here there will be denial, anger, and huge push back from a major industry that benefits immensely from the sale of a product dangerous to the public good. The fight has to be fought. Amen.
Friday, August 3, 2012
France is one of the most aggressively secular states in the world. Religion is widely looked on with varying degrees of indifference, suspicion, and even open hostility. In this hostile environment, however, French evangelicalism is quietly growing in numbers along the fringes of French society. Figures in the posting suggest that today there are about 600,000 evangelical Protestants in France. In a nation of nearly 66 million according to Wikipedia (here), that is an unimpressive figure, but the important thing is that the numbers have been growing steadily, and some experts consider it the fastest growing religion in France today.
The article cites a variety of reasons for this growth: evangelical churches are informal and warm hearted. Minority groups find them appealing. In hard economic times, they provide a refuge for some people. Furthermore, France is changing socially into a less hierarchical society, and evangelicalism fits this change. At the same time French-style evangelicalism is self-consciously not like American evangelicalism. It is more liberal, ecumenical, and European in its approach.
There is a larger point here, which is that in many settings evangelical Protestantism is proving itself more adaptable and spiritually attractive than the historic Protestant churches. Its churches take faith more seriously. They also seem to find more joy in their faith. Evangelicals are often more willing to share their faith and better able to do so. In sum, one direction declining mainline churches would do well to explore (and some are exploring) is discovering and adapting a more warm hearted, joyful, and spiritually articulate evangelicalism to the life of our congregations. We would do well to become more joyfully serious in our faith.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
There is a true world. It is meta-physical, sensible, and true. It has been Present for the billions of years of the real world, and it may also be evolving. We don't know. It has depths and heights deeper and higher than the undisciplined heart can perceive. Our knowledge of the true world grows over time.
The real world and the true world are separately one world together, but there are those who choose to live only in one or the other. For them, the previous sentence is nonsense, because it speaks of two worlds being one world but still refers to this single entity as being two. Yet, some of those who want to live in one of the two single worlds are very comfortable with the tiniest bits of reality being either and both energy and/or particles. At the edges of their real world, language begins to get tangled up with apparent contradictions. And for others, they are convinced that one man was/is both a single human person and God the beyondest of all Beyonds. And, again, at the edges of their true world language gets tangled up in apparent contradictions. It really shouldn't be that hard to see the real world and the true world, two worlds real & true, as one world, true & real.
The real world is the world of Science. The true world is the world of Faith. One day, we will see them for what they are, human ways of grappling with the truly real universe and its really true source of becoming, which is its Creator. Amen.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Then, there's article entitled, "M-Theory and the Higgs boson," which is the hardest to understand by far for those of us who aren't trained physicists. The author, Dr. Henryk Frystack, briefly summarizes the significance of the recent discovery of the "Higg's boson," a sub-microscopic form of energy, that has the potential to significantly improve our understanding of fundamental realities. The more we understand the more mysterious the universe becomes, and for those of us who are convinced that a Creator lies within it all, it becomes still more miraculous and sacred—not less.
Perhaps the most important posting of all, however, from a theological perspective is the opinion piece written by Heinrich Rohre, "The misconduct of science?" Rohre reminds his readers that science has its own culture, which can be corrupted, abused, and even hamper best scientific practices. He writes of this very human enterprise, "Scientists must follow a path that is not scientifically predefined, and that requires decisions at every step. Whether they are right or wrong becomes clear in retrospect, which is why errors are unavoidable (though they should not be left uncorrected for long)." He also states that, "Science means constantly walking a tightrope between blind faith and curiosity; between expertise and creativity; between bias and openness; between experience and epiphany; between ambition and passion; and between arrogance and conviction — in short, between an old today and a new tomorrow." That is to say, there is a good deal to science that is not scientific, and the boundaries between science and a religious-like faith are not always very clear.
Science doesn't merely discover new facts about reality. It also helps to create reality. The reality scientists discover is God-given. The realities they create aren't. They are very human. It is crucial for people of faith to remain open to, in dialogue with, and sometimes critical of the realities science creates. At the same time, it is important to stay current with the ones they discover.