Science And Divine Revelation

Those who think science and religion necessarily conflict need to pick up a couple of fairly recent books. One is NAMING INFINITY by Loren Graham. The other is THE REASON FOR HOPE by Jane Goodall. There have been advances in science that were made by religious people, and in some cases at least these people were able to make these advances seemingly because of their particular religious experiences and beliefs.

For instance, there was a young man in India who at 13 years old came across an algebra book, and from this book derived problems that have baffled mathematicians for a century. One of those problems was recently solved. The thing is, this young man claimed he received his insights from a Hindu goddess in a dream. And these advances were so out of left field that it surely took a unique perspective to achieve them.

NAMING INFINTY tells the story of a major advancement in set theory accomplished by a group of mathematicians who belonged to an obscure Orthodox sect called Name Worshippers (whose contemplative practices were an influence on me). Their belief in the power of the infinite being contained in the Divine Name helped them see around problems dealing with infinite sets, problems their secular associates seemed at a loss to solve.

Digression: notice the frequency of mathematicians in all of this. There are also many examples of mathematicians going on to do great work in theology, A N Whitehead being my favorite example. The history of math and religion is fascinating, worthy of another post some time.

Jane Goodall was also selected by Louis Leaky to study chimps in part because she had a different way of looking at the world than most scientists he knew. She credits her faith for part of that vision. Religious experience changes the way we look at the world. That change can obscure or inform. And if it can inform on a subject so removed from everyday life, what else can it inform on? How many advances in ethics have come by means similar to Ramanujan's? Many, I'd wager.

The content of a religious experience is not the place where we necessarily find it's truth. Just because a vision seems mad, doesn't mean it doesnt contain genuine insights. Ezekiel's visions no doubt point to some kind of mental illness, but in his madness I believe he genuinely touched upon truths about God and our relationship with Him. In fact, given what I believe about God revealing Himself in the lowest and weakness, it makes sense to me that He'd slip into history in the vision of a person the world might call 'crazy'. The relationship between his vision and the truth, however, is more like the relationship between Ramanujan's vision and his mathematical insight, than the relationship between truth of a table's location and my experience of seeing it. Just because I'm crazy, doesn't mean I'm wrong. This truth has implications for many scientistic objections to religious belief. But that, too, is a thought for a future post.