Has Science Surpassed Religion?

I heard a claim recently that science has surpassed religion.  It has done so by answering the problem of life, or how life came about.  Apparently this is something that the hallowed discipline of religion has been unable to accomplish to date.

So how does science answer the problem of life where religion has so far failed?  It does so through the generations of chaos and the good judgment of evolution.  These two, according to this claim, are the power couple of science.

To quickly say how they work together, chaos could be thought of as the engine of creation.  It is constantly bringing forth new orders and patterns into the world.  Just think of the stripes on a tiger or the spots on a cow.  Evolution then decides from among these chaotic creations what is good (and worth keeping) and what is evil (and for the ash heap).  Effectively, chaos sets them up and natural selection knocks them down (or at least it knocks down those that prove incapable of passing on their traits).

With this religion is (apparently) surpassed by science in terms of life explaining power.  Chaos and evolution provide natural mechanisms for what could before only be explained by God, the original engine and judge of creation.

But let's be serious for a moment.  Even if we accept these natural mechanisms (indeed, I would say that both chaos and evolutionary theory are beautiful and true), is this power couple a superior solution to the problem of life than God?  Has science surpassed religion?

One simple question decides the matter for me: Can we shout with joy before the mindless generations and selections of nature?  Are these above all praiseworthy or creative of the good?  Can we deny that a more mindful creative power is at work?  Or could be at work and should be at work?

I don't think so.  I don't think anyone can seriously think so.  Therefore science has not surpassed religion.

Thanks be to Job.

Following Postmodernism

Read an article awhile ago on postmodernism.  Or on what comes after postmodernism.

It is not an uncommon question.  Answers also abound.  As do views of what postmodernism is.

But the article did make me think.  Not so much about its proposal, but my own.

For what it's worth then, I think that postmodernism, no matter what it is besides, is an epoch of thought defined by a certain moral ambiguousness or spiritual neutrality.   It is a time of undecidability.  Of not knowing how or what to decide or believe.  It is a time when decisions and defining beliefs are elusive or hard to come by. 

Under postmodernism leadership is uninspiring.  Morality is in need of rejuvination.  Religion is doubtful and of little significance. 

Postmodernism marks a time of spiritual void or vacuity.  Of complete and utter homelessness and hopelessness.  Of having nowhere to rest our head so full of confusion about what is good and what is evil.  About what is True and what is false.

 

Postmodernism has this quality because it comes after the end of modernism, after the many (anthropocentric!) idols and projects of modernism fell and failed.  Progress.  Reason.  The systematisation of reality.  Even modernism's typically steadfast commitment to God falls into disrepute under postmodernism.  Or at least the God of so-called "onto-theology" does, which Nietzsche, and Stirner before him, declared the death of.

(Modernism too struggled with religion but the point there was not that we shouldn't commit to God, which we should, but that we should rely on our own reason rather than the authority of others when it comes to discerning God's word.  This is why modernism gave rise to the Protestant Reformation, which advocated a personal relationship with Scripture versus a Church controlled one.)

As a critique of modernism's values postmodernism is effectively a time of having nothing left upon which we can rely.  Again, it is a time of moral ambiguity and spiritual void.

But as to what follows postmodernism this gives us a vital clue.  I think Nietzsche puts it well when he describes our possible responses to nihilism: Either we can give up any search for Truth, opting instead to play Nintendo and eat cheesy poofs all day, or we could be like explorers who look yearningly into the space opened up by postmodernism.

That is, we could commit to a neutered existence or we could be enheartened and emboldened by the vista  before us.  The space cleared of all of modernism's (humanistic!) errors and ready for us to begin hoping and desiring for something new.  A foundation upon which, and from which, we can live.

The epoch of thought that follows postmodernism then, or that should follow postmodernism, is a time defined by seeking out this new home.  It is a time of searching for a new religion and inspiration for decision and spiritual fulfillment.

It too is a homeless time but at least the restless wandering of postmodernism is replaced by a moving about with purpose.  The moral ambiguity, secularity and atheism accompanying postmodernism are replaced by a hint and promise of something True.  A promised land and day of rest after the long hard work and labour pains that define the epoch of thought we are currently in.

Thanks be to Job.