A Cosmic Conversation

Over on the Book of Face, somebody commented on this:

They said, “That’s why religion is meaningless.”

I remarked, “I wonder how long it will take homo sapiens to figure out that when he makes statements like this they are themselves, a) 100% religious in nature, and b) 100% commentary, not on the stars he is looking at, but on the heart with which he is looking.”

Which sparked the following conversation:

Reader 1: “Really cool how science figured out what Andromeda is, after priests failed to for 12 millennia.

Me: Give me a break. Aside from the fact that priests have as much interest in the sciences as anybody (Copernicus, Mendel, and LeMaitre ring a bell?), the notion that because ancients did not do what had to wait for 20th century technology to be done shows they were stoopid is pure postmodern jingoism.

Reader 1: Those great discovers were scientists who were religious. Other great discoverers were scientists who were not religious. The indispensible part was the science, not the religion. I certainly agree that some religions have supported and contributed to scientific discovery, and to the development of technology that has enabled it. But you’re taking it quite a bit farther than that in your post.

Me: The indispensible part of what? The claim that a photograph of a bunch of stars renders religion “meaningless” is pure rubbish.

Reader 1: I agree that the image of the stars does not render religion “meaningless”. Nor does it rule out that possibility. Maybe that’s your point and if so, my apologies for misinterpreting it.

Me: My point is that every attempt to use the measurement and manipulation of the metric properties of time, space, matter, and energy as the basis for Grand Theological and Metaphysical Pronouncements that God does not exist and Religious People are All Idiots is rubbish. It is also, paradoxically, an expression of religious conviction, not science, every bit as much as Psalm 8.

PS. Thank you for apologizing. I’ve been doing yard work today and forgot to thank you for saying that. My apologies.

Reader 2: One of the oddest, though initially understandable, arguments against belief in a God who cares about human beings is that we’re so tiny. And true, we are. I suspect we are far smaller to the known universe by scale than a grain of sand is to the planet earth. So yes, that’s really little.

First issue, though. Size doesn’t equal significance.

Second issue. To paraphrase Pascal, “Man is a reed, but a thinking reed.” (Walker Percy adds to this “…and a walking genital” but we’ll leave that for now). The power of thought is something that – as far as we can tell so far – is unique to us.

Third issue. Who decides what is significant and what is not? If, and I realize it is a big if for some, God is the arbiter of significance and measures it according to a form of love which is infinite, perhaps we should turn our attention to what the Gospels offer us on how far God went on this score?

Me: “Humans are tiny, and therefore meaningless and worthless” reveals the fascist, totalitarian, and imperialist instinct of the speaker and nothing at all about human worth. Chesterton replied to the chestnut, “Man is tiny compared to the Universe!” with “Man is tiny compared to the nearest tree.”

Reader 3: What exactly does “Religion is meaningless” even mean?

If someone said, “All religious statements are false,” I could understand. At the beginning of the 20th century there were philosophers who thought that all religious statements are meaningless on grounds that it is impossible to provide conditions for how such statements would be verified (there’s nothing you can describe using your five senses that would confirm its truth); but that criterion of verification has long since been abandoned: Honestly, no one holds to it anymore.

Clearly religious statements have some meaning; and moreover the activity of religion clearly has meaning, it has a function, in some people’s lives. So it isn’t clear to me what “Religion is meaningless” could possibly mean, especially in relation to the James Webb telescope.

Me: It’s a slogan whose goal is Unit Cohesion for a particular sociological demographic, not a thought. It’s like “Make America Great Again!” or “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” or “To Hell with the Pope!” or “Deus Volt!” or “Allahu Akbar!” Its purpose is not to promote thought but to steel nerves to fight against whatever the speaker hates.

Reader 4: Do you suppose they have the same religions on all other inhabited planets that are likely to exist throughout the universe? How would that work?

Me: I have often imagined the scene as the Great Mothership lands on the south lawn of the White House, the ramp lowers, the mysterious aliens emerge and distribute their Universal Translators to the assembled world leaders and their Ambassador begins, “People of Earth, our Oyarsa have revealed to us that Maleldil visited your world and even entered your species as one of you 2000 of your earth years ago! We have made pilgrimage to meet your species and learn the story of this! Tell us! We must know: WHAT DID YOU DO TO WELCOME HIM? AND HOW HAS YOUR SPECIES EVOLVED AND CHANGED SINCE THAT GREATEST OF ALL GIFTS WAS GIVEN YOU?”

Can you imagine the exquisite discomfort of the poor slob tasked with explaining *that* to an unfallen race?

Reader 1: Your question is good and relevant to the post. Wondering about stuff like that is a good way to be “filled with wonder”.

Me: One of the most refreshing insights I ever ran across is that science, philosophy, theology, and art all begin with Wonder. The notion that there is some necessary conflict there is one of the greatest unforced errors in the history of humanity.

Reader 4: I like it. . I have contemplated it similarly, though I like the way you articulated it. I have not read Lewis’s book that you reference.

Me: I think the Space Trilogy is underappreciated. It is both funny and terrifying, as well as weird and highly experimental. There’s nothing quite like those books. They are waaaaay out of the mainstream of Golden Age Sci Fi.

Reader 4: Sadly, the dogma of religion, the stuff humans fight over, seems to quickly lose relevance once it leaves our atmosphere, even more so once it leaves our solar system. More still once it leaves our galaxy . . . and even more still . . .

That also seems to be a theme that is consistently reinforced by reports from people who have experienced N

Me: Religion is culturally conditioned. It is our response to God and God’s relationship mediated to us in light of our particular mode of living and perceiving him (since that which is received is received according to the mode of the receiver). God has always, of necessity, had to talk baby talk to us since it’s all we can understand.

How another created species (assuming all organic life must be a species of many members and not, as with angels, a multiplicity of species containing one member each) perceives God and responds to him will, one presumes, also be entirely predicated on how they perceive and process reality.

At the same time, God is entirely unconditioned. He is bedrock reality–I AM– and any created nature will have to, in the end, conform to him, since he does not change. That includes his Trinitarian nature and (most mysteriously) his assumption of our created human nature. What we know absolutely nothing about is whether he has assumed other natures as well. I suppose we shall find out in time.