Philosophy of religion explored during discussion
College honors program presents The Quest for the Transcendant
Michael Hinton
Issue date: 4/21/08 Section: Entertainment
| |
|
An insight into this struggle that questions the limits of reason and tests ones personal religious beliefs was presented by the college honors program last week entitled The Quest for the Transcendent.
Student A.J. Elsner, of the honors program, presented four questions related to the program title to the panelists, followed by a question and answer session.
The four panelists included John Osterman, professor of government and strong believer in religion; Kimberly Edwards, a stay-at-home mother of six and also a believer in religion; Bennie Matusek, an atheist and owner of his own web development company; and Eric Muir-head, also an atheist and Central Eng-lish professor.
The first question asked was if religious belief necessarily entails opposition to science and empirical discovery.
Osterman said that it is his personal belief that religion does not entail opposition to the study of the natural world.
"The two can co-exist, I don't see any reason why they would not be able to," Osterman said.
Edwards said her personal religious beliefs do create an opposition to her views on scientific evidence.
"As long as your beliefs do not harm anyone, you will be blessed," Edwards said.
Matusek explained how the opposition of science and religion depends on how one defines their own personal beliefs in both aspects.
He used the Dali Lama as an example to argue that there can easily be no opposition between science and empirical discovery. The Dali Lama said that if he ever found science in contradiction with his beliefs, he would modify his beliefs immediately.
"Now here is a guy that is the head of a religion with a long history, a lot of tradition and at any moment he is willing to give up any part of his belief if it is contradicted by science," Matusek said. "Just the fact that he was willing to even consider to do such a thing left me very impr-essed."
Muirhead agreed there does not necessarily have to be an opposition between religion and science, but the opposition does exist.
"Within both belief systems there are certain definitions and explanations for what is true," Muirhead said. "Some of these explanations will always conflict."
The next question was whether the concept of a "transcendent" is only appropriate to religious belief or does it have as much relevance to science and the arts. The definition of the word transcendent means "beyond limits of experience" or "independent of the world." This implies that searching for a "transcendent" could mean searching for a greater understanding of all existence or the need to ascend knowledge past the limits of reality thus achieving perfect understanding and truth.
Osterman said the answer depends on how you interpret the word "transcendent." He believes that the word can work for both belief systems.
"If we understand it to be a search for the unknown, it works for science because that's what scientists are attempting to do by making observations, gathering data and exploring to further their knowledge of the unknown," Osterman said. "People of any religion seek to understand their faith."
The panel was then asked why they agreed or disagreed with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, "The various religions are like different roads converging on the same point. What difference does it make if we all follow different routes, provided we arrive at the same destination?"
Osterman disagreed with the statement arguing that years of tradition and history can't be fused with other beliefs for a convenient final destination.
"It would be nice if it were true that no matter how you practiced your faith or religion it would lead to the same place," Osterman said. "But I don't think that roughly 2,000 years of tradition or doctrine would agree with that."
Edwards said she believes that any belief system that values life, and is overall non-destructive in nature, will lead a person to the same end.
Matusek agreed with the statement, but explained his thought on the extreme beliefs practiced by people in each belief system.
"In any group, you always have extremist," Matusek said. "The hate and the pain they want to inflict to prove that their belief system holds the only truth always amazes me."
As the conflicting beliefs of different religions, Muirhead said he believes the statement to be very true.
Elsner closed with asking how the panelists' viewed the meaning of life.
Osterman responded with his belief that the meaning of life lies within mankind's freewill.
"Whatever you want to do with your life, the point of your decisions is that you get to choose them," Osterman said. "And that is the meaning of life."
Muirhead gave a similar res-ponse in that meaning can be found in our freedom, and the yearning to use our freedom for change and growth is the basis of humanity.
"We are free, free to choose our concerns which embody a life worth living," Muirhead said. "We are free to act and realize in order to fulfill those concerns.
After the discussion members of the audience asked questions. Central English professor David Lemaster asked Muirhead specifically if the question of science vs. religion comes from the sacredness of the written word.
Muirhead said the written word has great power and has the ability to transcend time. The authenticity of the word cannot be proven or disproved.
When the panel was asked if religion was necessary for human survival, they responded with related viewpoints claiming, although it may not be necessary for mankind's survival, religion is built into the humane psychology.
Be the first to comment on this story