We just finished up this year’s theological symposium on science and theology on the Concordia Seminary campus. Presentations on quantum physics, ecology, and neuroscience (free videos of which will be up on the Seminary’s iTunes U site shortly) and other issues have left my brain oozing, but also with a couple of observations….

When we brush away the misconceptions about both science and religion, we are left with two kinds of human knowledge that can be mutually enriching. There were more than a few times when talk of scientific discovery led my mind into new and exciting theological territory. It is truly tragic when misunderstandings on both sides cut off the dialogue between the two. So much of the terrain between the two is still uncharted.

Second, one of the faculty presenters, Dr. Rick Marrs, in referencing an article by Barbara Bradley Hagerty in USA Today, picked up on a distinction between secrets and mysteries.…

There is an interesting article in today’s Boston Globe, Mathematics and faith explain altruism. Many religious believers hold up altruism as evidence that our faith can allow us to rise above mere evolutionary determinism, thus pointing to a transcendent reality they call “God.” The article notes the argument by atheist British biologist Richard Dawkins who claims that altruism is simply an evolutionary quirk that allowed our distant anscestors to thrive and pass along their genes because they cooperated with each other.

The article then highlights a recent study by Martin Nowak, a Catholic evolutionary mathematician at Harvard University, and Sarah Coakley, a theologian at Cambridge University in England, who have shown that “cooperation is more than just a nice leftover from humanity’s infancy; it’s a winning strategy for living, a way to thrive.” Further, the Boston Globe explains:

Math aside, Nowak and Coakley say biology has enshrined cooperation as well. In their…

That’s the subtext to The New York Times columnist David Brooks‘ recent piece on religion and science, “The Neural Buddhists.” He’s taking up recent developments in neuroscience, and coming to the conclusion that present and future debates between religion and science will not be over the existence of God, but over whether or not organized religion contributes to or harms the brain’s intuitions toward transcendence and spirituality.

Thus, the title: science leading to a “neural Buddhism.”

Or, as he says: “The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.”

In other words, it’s the standard line: “I’m spiritual but not religious.” Whatever that means.

But, consider Brooks’ summary of recent literature in neuroscience:

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different…