Now the Dowd book is something to discuss. I know a lot about the book and about Dowd. I think the concept of a marriage of science and religion is flawed. He writes from the perspective of scientific materialism and his work is more along the lines of "the conflation of science and religion." In a recent trip to Chapel Hill, he said that we know longer need faith because we have scientific fact. See this blog post by Michael: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-michael-dowd/new-theists-knowers-not-belie... . Where he writes:*A new breed of theist is emerging around the globe. We are religious naturalists <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism>: Reality is our God, evidence is our Scripture, integrity is our religion, and contributing toward a healthy future is our mission.* Now this is an incomplete response and there is much more to be said, including some positive things about Michael's approach. By the way, in some senses I am a religious naturalist, but along the lines of process theology. See Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of...<http://www.amazon.com/Reenchantment-without-Supernaturalism-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0801486572/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1373406412&sr=8-10&keywords=David+Ray+Griffin> by David Ray Griffin<http://www.amazon.com/David-Ray-Griffin/e/B000APTCK4/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_10?qid=1373406412&sr=8-10> (Nov 16, 2000). In the process approach there's plenty of transcendence as well as immanence, and religious knowledge is not only what can be known through the five senses and logic. There are other ways of knowing. I imagine Harvey Cox's book is quite good. I've always appreciated his work. Herman On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:36 PM, R Williams <rcwmbw@yahoo.com> wrote:

Herman,

I read Brooks' article this morning somewhat hastily. What I thought he missed was the subtle distinction between belief (intellectual assent) and faith ("you-bet-your-life" trust), which is a very healthy and informative conversation going on today in certain circles. Whether he (Brooks) does justice to Taylor's book, I do not know, but on what appears to be the same subject I would recommend *The Future of Faith* by Harvey Cox and *Thank God for Evolution* by Michael Dowd. Dowd's book, which I suspect you are familiar with, is about the marriage of science and religion, which he explains thoroughly and, for my money, quite convincingly.

Randy

*No change without action, no action without thought.* -Anonymous

*From:* Herman Greene <hfgreenenc@gmail.com> *To:* OE Listserv <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:22 PM *Subject:* [Oe List ...] A review of Charles Taylor's "The Secular Society"

It's no doubt hard to do a book review in the constraints of a NYC op-ed column.

David Brooks tries, but I'm not tuning in to the richness of his review. Still I thought this may be of interest to you who taught about an urban, scientific and secular world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/opinion/brooks-the-secular-society.html?hp

-- __________________________________________________ Herman F. Greene 2516 Winningham Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919-942-4358 (ph & fax) hfgreenenc@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net

_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net

-- __________________________________________________ Herman F. Greene 2516 Winningham Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919-942-4358 (ph & fax) hfgreenenc@gmail.com

David, I would live your faith any day. I don't mean to inject a negative energy into commenting on Michael Dowd. He stands for a position, that deserves a hearing. He certainly adheres to his creed himself. He is a personal friend though he knows we look at things differently. He and Connie stayed with us for three days in May. So pretending we don't know who this comes from me, let me offer some writings from the blog post I referenced that may show a conflation of religion and science. And then I'll following it with things he says that hedges the matter and arguably are inconsistent with his basic stance; First the conflation: *A Manifesto for the New Theism* A new breed of theist is emerging in nearly every denomination and religion across the globe, and many of us are grateful to the New Atheists<http://evolutionarytimes.org/?id=4062053276054322992> for calling us out of the closet. Just as today's crop of bestselling unbelievers are echoing what was said a hundred years ago, New Theists are re-articulating themes that ignited liberal sensibilities of the 19th and 20th centuries <http://bootstrapmonkey.com/2012/03/21/the-god-shaped-hole/>. New Theists are *not* believers; we're evidentialists. We value scientific, historic and cross-cultural evidence over ancient texts, religious dogma or ecclesiastical authority. We also value how an evidential worldview enriches and deepens our communion with God<http://www.thankgodforevolution.com/node/2010> -Reality-Life-Universe-Mystery-Wholeness. . . . . New Theists view religion and religious language through an empirical, evidential, evolutionary lens, rather than through a theological or philosophical one. Indeed, an ability to distinguish subjective and objective reality -- practical truth<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/practical-truth-vs-factual-truth/> (that which reliably produces personal wholeness and social coherence) from factual truth<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/practical-truth-vs-factual-truth/> (that which is measurably real) -- is one of the defining characteristics of New Theists. . . . . *Reality is our God, evidence is our scripture, integrity is our religion, and contributing toward a healthy future is our mission.* By "reality is our God <http://www.thankgodforevolution.com/node/2010>" we mean that honoring and working with what is *real*, as evidentially and collectively discerned, and then creatively imagining what *could be*, is our ultimate concern and commitment. By "evidence is our Scripture<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-michael-dowd/the-evidential-reformation-humanity-comes-of-age_b_1421966.html>" we mean that scientific, historic and cross-cultural evidence provide a better understanding and a more authoritative map of *how things are* and *which things matter* (or *what is real* and *what is important*) than do ancient mythic writings or handed-down wisdom. By "integrity is our religion<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/big-integrity-resources-growing-in-right-relationship-to-reality/>" we mean that living in right relationship to reality and helping others and our species do the same is our great responsibility and joy. By "contributing toward a healthy future is our mission<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/big-integrity-resources-growing-in-right-relationship-to-reality/>" we mean that working with people of all backgrounds and beliefs in service of a vibrant future for planet Earth and all its gloriously diverse species is our divine calling and privilege. Now where he hedges: New Theists are not supernaturalists; we're naturalists. We are inspired and motivated far more by *this* world and *this* life than by promises of a future *other*world or *after*life. This does not, however, mean that we diss uplifting or transcendent experiences, or disvalue mystery. We don't. But neither do we see the mystical as divorced from the natural. New Theists differ from traditional theists in the same way that secular Jews differ from fundamentalist Jews. Most of us do value traditional religious language and rituals, and we certainly value community. We simply no longer interpret literally any of the otherworldly or supernatural-sounding language in our scriptures, creeds and doctrines. Indeed, we interpret all mythic "night language<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/day-night-language-public-private-revelation/>" as one would interpret a dream: metaphorically, symbolically. New Theists practice what might be called a "practical spirituality<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/big-integrity-resources-growing-in-right-relationship-to-reality/>." Spirituality for us means the mindset, heart-space and tools that assist one in growing in integrity <http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/2012> (i.e., in right relationship to reality) and supporting others and our species in doing the same. It also means an interpretive stance that can be counted on to deliver hope in times of confusion, solace in times of sorrow and support for handling life's inevitable challenges. New Theists don't *believe *in God. We *know* that throughout human history the word "God" has always and everywhere been a meaning-filled interpretation, a mythic and inspiring personification<http://www.thankgodforevolution.com/node/2010> of forces and realities incomprehensible in pre-scientific times. . . . . New Theists are religious naturalists<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism>. Crucially, we value religion and religious heritage not only as a personal preference but also for its historic role in fostering cooperation<http://www.metanexus.net/blog/evolutionary-significance-religion-multi-level-selection> at scales far larger than our instincts alone could have achieved (*also here<http://thegreatstory.org/macneill.pdf> and here <http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/2075>*). Maybe tomorrow I'll comment on his view of the centrality of evolution . . . as understood from an *emergentist* perspective. Herman On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:19 PM, David Dunn <dmdunn1@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Herman Greene <hfgreenenc@gmail.com> wrote:

Now this is an incomplete response and there is much more to be said, including some positive things about Michael's approach. By the way, in some senses I am a religious naturalist, but along the lines of process theology. See Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of...<http://www.amazon.com/Reenchantment-without-Supernaturalism-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0801486572/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1373406412&sr=8-10&keywords=David+Ray+Griffin> by David Ray Griffin<http://www.amazon.com/David-Ray-Griffin/e/B000APTCK4/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_10?qid=1373406412&sr=8-10> (Nov 16, 2000). In the process approach there's plenty of transcendence as well as immanence, and religious knowledge is not only what can be known through the five senses and logic. There are other ways of knowing.

I think of myself as an avid scientist. What I believe is secondary and derivative of what I experience, with gratitude to the RS-I and Frank, Amy, Lyn, et al. I find myself thinking these days, "I don't believe in God, I have a God Hypothesis."

I observe in more ways than I can name a mystery, depth, and greatness in the world (and dozens of et ceteras that I'll lump under the category gracious and holy mystery) that come at me in the form of relationships and events, inside me and outside me. It's all sustaining and energizing, etc., etc.

My God hypothesis (for which read: narrative of what to expect) gives me eyes to see. My hypothesis is a narrative about trinitarian dynamics (limits, possibilities, freedom) and it has been uniformly and reliably predictive for over 40 years now. It's saved my life, one might say.

Rather than "do you believe in God?" I prefer to ask, "What are our images of God? Are they predictive of life experience? Do they give us eyes to see?"

I toy with images of myself as contemplative or mystic or inveterate listener or ceaseless questioner. All of them, really, are about constantly, unobtrusively observing, testing my hypothesis, refining my images of the way life is, and looking again, to see if I can see more of what is there and what is real.

I think I'd better read Dowd, Griffin, and Brooks, to see what all the energy is about.

I go a bit berserk at the endless, mindless contraversy about conflict between religious belief and scientific knowledge.

David

---

David Dunn 740 S Alton Way 9B Denver, CO 80247 720-314-5991 dmdunn1@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net

-- __________________________________________________ Herman F. Greene 2516 Winningham Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919-942-4358 (ph & fax) hfgreenenc@gmail.com

Hi Herman, I'd be interested to learn how yours and Dowd's perspective differ. Ellie -----Original Message----- From: Herman Greene <hfgreenenc@gmail.com> To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 6:45 pm Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] A review of Charles Taylor's "The Secular Society" David, I would live your faith any day. I don't mean to inject a negative energy into commenting on Michael Dowd. He stands for a position, that deserves a hearing. He certainly adheres to his creed himself. He is a personal friend though he knows we look at things differently. He and Connie stayed with us for three days in May. So pretending we don't know who this comes from me, let me offer some writings from the blog post I referenced that may show a conflation of religion and science. And then I'll following it with things he says that hedges the matter and arguably are inconsistent with his basic stance; First the conflation: A Manifesto for the New Theism A new breed of theist is emerging in nearly every denomination and religion across the globe, and many of us are grateful to the New Atheists for calling us out of the closet. Just as today's crop of bestselling unbelievers are echoing what was said a hundred years ago, New Theists are re-articulating themes that ignited liberal sensibilities of the 19th and 20th centuries. New Theists are not believers; we're evidentialists. We value scientific, historic and cross-cultural evidence over ancient texts, religious dogma or ecclesiastical authority. We also value how an evidential worldview enriches and deepens our communion with God-Reality-Life-Universe-Mystery-Wholeness. . . . . New Theists view religion and religious language through an empirical, evidential, evolutionary lens, rather than through a theological or philosophical one. Indeed, an ability to distinguish subjective and objective reality -- practical truth (that which reliably produces personal wholeness and social coherence) from factual truth (that which is measurably real) -- is one of the defining characteristics of New Theists. . . . . Reality is our God, evidence is our scripture, integrity is our religion, and contributing toward a healthy future is our mission. By "reality is our God" we mean that honoring and working with what is real, as evidentially and collectively discerned, and then creatively imagining what could be, is our ultimate concern and commitment. By "evidence is our Scripture" we mean that scientific, historic and cross-cultural evidence provide a better understanding and a more authoritative map of how things are and which things matter (or what is real and what is important) than do ancient mythic writings or handed-down wisdom. By "integrity is our religion" we mean that living in right relationship to reality and helping others and our species do the same is our great responsibility and joy. By "contributing toward a healthy future is our mission" we mean that working with people of all backgrounds and beliefs in service of a vibrant future for planet Earth and all its gloriously diverse species is our divine calling and privilege. Now where he hedges: New Theists are not supernaturalists; we're naturalists. We are inspired and motivated far more by this world and this life than by promises of a future otherworld or afterlife. This does not, however, mean that we diss uplifting or transcendent experiences, or disvalue mystery. We don't. But neither do we see the mystical as divorced from the natural. New Theists differ from traditional theists in the same way that secular Jews differ from fundamentalist Jews. Most of us do value traditional religious language and rituals, and we certainly value community. We simply no longer interpret literally any of the otherworldly or supernatural-sounding language in our scriptures, creeds and doctrines. Indeed, we interpret all mythic "night language" as one would interpret a dream: metaphorically, symbolically. New Theists practice what might be called a "practical spirituality." Spirituality for us means the mindset, heart-space and tools that assist one in growing in integrity (i.e., in right relationship to reality) and supporting others and our species in doing the same. It also means an interpretive stance that can be counted on to deliver hope in times of confusion, solace in times of sorrow and support for handling life's inevitable challenges. New Theists don't believe in God. We know that throughout human history the word "God" has always and everywhere been a meaning-filled interpretation, a mythic and inspiring personification of forces and realities incomprehensible in pre-scientific times. . . . . New Theists are religious naturalists. Crucially, we value religion and religious heritage not only as a personal preference but also for its historic role in fostering cooperation at scales far larger than our instincts alone could have achieved (also here and here). Maybe tomorrow I'll comment on his view of the centrality of evolution . . . as understood from an emergentist perspective. Herman On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:19 PM, David Dunn <dmdunn1@gmail.com> wrote: On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Herman Greene <hfgreenenc@gmail.com> wrote: Now this is an incomplete response and there is much more to be said, including some positive things about Michael's approach. By the way, in some senses I am a religious naturalist, but along the lines of process theology. See Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of... by David Ray Griffin (Nov 16, 2000). In the process approach there's plenty of transcendence as well as immanence, and religious knowledge is not only what can be known through the five senses and logic. There are other ways of knowing. I think of myself as an avid scientist. What I believe is secondary and derivative of what I experience, with gratitude to the RS-I and Frank, Amy, Lyn, et al. I find myself thinking these days, "I don't believe in God, I have a God Hypothesis." I observe in more ways than I can name a mystery, depth, and greatness in the world (and dozens of et ceteras that I'll lump under the category gracious and holy mystery) that come at me in the form of relationships and events, inside me and outside me. It's all sustaining and energizing, etc., etc. My God hypothesis (for which read: narrative of what to expect) gives me eyes to see. My hypothesis is a narrative about trinitarian dynamics (limits, possibilities, freedom) and it has been uniformly and reliably predictive for over 40 years now. It's saved my life, one might say. Rather than "do you believe in God?" I prefer to ask, "What are our images of God? Are they predictive of life experience? Do they give us eyes to see?" I toy with images of myself as contemplative or mystic or inveterate listener or ceaseless questioner. All of them, really, are about constantly, unobtrusively observing, testing my hypothesis, refining my images of the way life is, and looking again, to see if I can see more of what is there and what is real. I think I'd better read Dowd, Griffin, and Brooks, to see what all the energy is about. I go a bit berserk at the endless, mindless contraversy about conflict between religious belief and scientific knowledge. David --- David Dunn 740 S Alton Way 9B Denver, CO 80247 720-314-5991 dmdunn1@gmail.com _______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net -- __________________________________________________ Herman F. Greene 2516 Winningham Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919-942-4358 (ph & fax) hfgreenenc@gmail.com _______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net

Friends,   I'm fresh off having finished Dowd's book.  Like most writers on this subject these days, from my perspective he gets a lot of it right, a lot of it wrong, ignores a lot of what I consider pertinent, and overall raises some very good questions to ponder.  I have no interest in, nor basis for, defending Dowd, but here are some of his points that particularly resonated with me.   For one, David, I believe he does exactly what you suggest in your last statement, he reconciles the conflict between religious faith and scientific knowledge.  It is no particular leap for me to say, for example, that the story of creation is stated in one genre in the Bible (which Dowd would call "night language") and another way scientifically (which he would call "day language"), the latter expressed with the word "evolution," but that both are talking about the same reality.  I personally prefer words like "emergence" or "unfolding" in place of evolution but believe they are pointing to same thing.  And a key part of his message is that what all this points to is still going on and forever will be.  I harken to the words in Revelation, "Behold, I make all things new," present tense with future implied.   Another, I have no difficulty with Dowd's calling God "Ultimate Reality" and find that not too far from Tillich's "ground of being."  Both insist that God is not one reality or one being among others, but the basis, foundation, context, etc. for all.  And the faith question in relation to that ultimate groundedness is not, "What do you believe?" but rather "What do you trust to the point that are you willing to stake your life on it?"   Jack, to your point about rationalizing away mystery, my reading of Dowd (perhaps because this is what I want him to say) is that once you have explained scientifically how something in the religious arena works or happens, that need not take the mystery out of it.  My example--child birth.  I have a layman's knowledge of how this happens scientifically, but it is no less mysterious and awe-filling each time it occurs.  I could say the same about death.  Hence in his talk about "public" and "private" revelation and about rational, factual language and about mythical, metaphorical language, the use of one does not cancel out the need for the other.  While I am not as ready as he appears to be to discount the role and impact of scripture and tradition as being obsolete, my Wesleyan heritage puts me right with him in affirming that revelation is sourced not only through scripture and tradition but also through reason and experience. One of the ideas he pushes at hard is that God's evolutional, revelatory, creative activity did not stop and the end of the sixth day in Genesis or the day the last writer of the New Testament, or some other wisdom literature, put down his pen.   Other points that caught my attention: that emergence happens through us in partnership with God; service to the Whole a big part of what we would call profound humanness; the dominant metaphor is changing from a mechanical to a nested, networked world, etc. etc. etc.   Thanks, Herman, for prompting this conversation (again) and to all who are participating in it.   Randy From: "jlepps@pc.jaring.my" <jlepps@pc.jaring.my> To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] A review of Charles Taylor's "The Secular Society" How could I stay out of this conversation??? There are at least three essays in my forthcoming book that address this issue. 2 are reviews of naive "theological" statements by Steven Hawking, and one is an essay on Faith. The latter is particularly pertinent here, since much of the controversy is about mis-understanding of language. Briefly, Faith seeks understanding, Faith seeks action, and Faith seeks expression. It's the expressions of faith that are sometimes confused with understandings of faith, and this leads to grossly flawed (and "unscientific") beliefs. It's as if one were to take Humpty Dumpty as a historical account rather than a mythological statement of profound truth! Anyway the book is called "The Theology of Surprise: Exploring Life's Mysteries." It should be out around the first of August through Resurgence Publishing. Should be available through Amazon soon. John At 04:19 PM 7/9/2013, you wrote: On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Herman Greene <hfgreenenc@gmail.com> wrote:

Now this is an incomplete response and there is much more to be said, including some positive things about Michael's approach. By the way, in some senses I am a religious naturalist, but along the lines of process theology. See

...

Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of... by David Ray Griffin (Nov 16, 2000). In the process approach there's plenty of transcendence as well as immanence, and religious knowledge is not only what can be known through the five senses and logic. There are other ways of knowing.

I think of myself as an avid scientist. What I believe is secondary and derivative of what I experience, with gratitude to the RS-I and Frank, Amy, Lyn, et al. I find myself thinking these days, "I don't believe in God, I have a God Hypothesis."

I observe in more ways than I can name a mystery, depth, and greatness in the world (and dozens of et ceteras that I'll lump under the category gracious and holy mystery) that come at me in the form of relationships and events, inside me and outside me. It's all sustaining and energizing, etc., etc.

My God hypothesis (for which read: narrative of what to expect) gives me eyes to see. My hypothesis is a narrative about trinitarian dynamics (limits, possibilities, freedom) and it has been uniformly and reliably predictive for over 40 years now. It's saved my life, one might say.

Rather than "do you believe in God?" I prefer to ask, "What are our images of God? Are they predictive of life experience? Do they give us eyes to see?"

I toy with images of myself as contemplative or mystic or inveterate listener or ceaseless questioner. All of them, really, are about constantly, unobtrusively observing, testing my hypothesis, refining my images of the way life is, and looking again, to see if I can see more of what is there and what is real.

I think I'd better read Dowd, Griffin, and Brooks, to see what all the energy is about.

I go a bit berserk at the endless, mindless contraversy about conflict between religious belief and scientific knowledge.

David

---

David Dunn 740 S Alton Way 9B Denver, CO 80247 720-314-5991 dmdunn1@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net

_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net

Dowd came to speak at our church (Covenant Church in Houston). He is an amazingly high energy speaker, very interesting. He strides back and forth over about 30 feet on the stage with every possible gesture. But the high energy wears thin very quickly. Kind of like sticking the audience's heads in a fire hydrant stream. Too bad, because few people can do what he does. If he could alternate his high energy mode with a slow, quietly dramatic mode he would be a blockbuster speaker. Strange that someone who is on the road speaking continuously hasn't gotten (or maybe hasn't listened to) a little coaching on public speaking. Wouldn't take much to improve, assuming he is capable of standing still and lowering his voice for a few seconds. :-) I remember his style more than his message. We bought his book "Thank God for Evolution" which I will read and give him a chance. Tim

David, Thanks for this "God hypothesis" idea. I ind that very useful. And it guards against my constant problem of "God" turning into some capricious absent father figure. . . On Tuesday, July 9, 2013, David Dunn wrote:

On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Herman Greene <hfgreenenc@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hfgreenenc@gmail.com');>> wrote:

Now this is an incomplete response and there is much more to be said, including some positive things about Michael's approach. By the way, in some senses I am a religious naturalist, but along the lines of process theology. See Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of...<http://www.amazon.com/Reenchantment-without-Supernaturalism-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0801486572/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1373406412&sr=8-10&keywords=David+Ray+Griffin> by David Ray Griffin<http://www.amazon.com/David-Ray-Griffin/e/B000APTCK4/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_10?qid=1373406412&sr=8-10> (Nov 16, 2000). In the process approach there's plenty of transcendence as well as immanence, and religious knowledge is not only what can be known through the five senses and logic. There are other ways of knowing.

I think of myself as an avid scientist. What I believe is secondary and derivative of what I experience, with gratitude to the RS-I and Frank, Amy, Lyn, et al. I find myself thinking these days, "I don't believe in God, I have a God Hypothesis."

I observe in more ways than I can name a mystery, depth, and greatness in the world (and dozens of et ceteras that I'll lump under the category gracious and holy mystery) that come at me in the form of relationships and events, inside me and outside me. It's all sustaining and energizing, etc., etc.

My God hypothesis (for which read: narrative of what to expect) gives me eyes to see. My hypothesis is a narrative about trinitarian dynamics (limits, possibilities, freedom) and it has been uniformly and reliably predictive for over 40 years now. It's saved my life, one might say.

Rather than "do you believe in God?" I prefer to ask, "What are our images of God? Are they predictive of life experience? Do they give us eyes to see?"

I toy with images of myself as contemplative or mystic or inveterate listener or ceaseless questioner. All of them, really, are about constantly, unobtrusively observing, testing my hypothesis, refining my images of the way life is, and looking again, to see if I can see more of what is there and what is real.

I think I'd better read Dowd, Griffin, and Brooks, to see what all the energy is about.

I go a bit berserk at the endless, mindless contraversy about conflict between religious belief and scientific knowledge.

David

---

David Dunn 740 S Alton Way 9B Denver, CO 80247 720-314-5991 dmdunn1@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dmdunn1@gmail.com');>

-- Tracy E. Longacre from the road just another child of God Blog: http://tlongacre.wordpress.com Run Blog: http://revruns.blogspot.com Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tlongacre/ ———-O0ooo— ———–(——)— ————)–-/—- ————(_/- —-ooo0O—- —-(——)—- —–\-–(– ——\_)-