An Ancient Debate Re-Formulated

David Brooks has an op-ed piece in the NYT about the ongoing debate between faith and science. At least that is the dichotomy we use to frame the debate. A closer look shows that it's a false dichotomy. The debate isn't between faith and science. And it's not a dualistic debate. It's between a whole bunch of differing worldviews. And how those espousing a materialist understanding of the universe claim to be the holders of Truth. Funny how they also are the ones who rail the hardest against religious claims of the existence of Truth that is not relative but universal.

So much for the rant. One of the points Brooks makes is that it appears that current research in neuroscience supports a form of scientific Buddhism while undermining any formal religious worldview, especially ones that find their validity in the Bible. I find that interesting in that for me each new finding, each new understanding of how our brains operate and how the material universe is put together strongly supports an orthodox Christian faith grounded in the Bible.

Genome research and neuroscience showing both selfish and altruistic tendencies in the brain confirm the Genesis story of The Fall of Humanity. They point to the original sinless condition of humanity and confirm that brokenness (read sin) is now embedded in the deepest recesses of humanness.

The science involved in these discussions is much more advanced than that of the Greco-Roman world of the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, but sadly the philosophical depth is much more shallow than that of the Cappadocians. Gregory of Nyssa would have reveled in the work of today's neuro-scientists. Just as he used the work of the Platonic philosophers and the materialists of his day to show the fallacy of their position and to support Christian orthodoxy, so too, he would probably find in the writings and research of today's materialists all the support needed to assert the validity of the teachings of scripture.