God and Science: Aceptance and Belief

I have long been troubled by the use of the word "belief". Especially how it is used comparing belief in things we know from religion and belief in things we know from science. Should we even use the same word when talking of things physical and things spiritual? For instance, I believe that the sun will rise in the morning and I believe that if I let go of a ball, it will drop down. I really believe those things. As often as I observe them, they always happens the same way. But I never felt that that was the same way I felt about what I "believe in" about God.

But, wait a minute!

Science tells me that the sun doesn't really rise in the morning. Science tells me that the earth and sun are revolving around each other as they are together hurtling through space at some millions of miles an hour or something. I don't believe that. I accept it, because other people think that is the best explanation, but don't believe it. I can't even comprehend it. And then science tells me that the ball is not really just dropping down, but that the ball and the earth are attracted toward each other and are both moving, however so slightly, in some Newtonian notion of science, toward each other. Now, once again, I can accept that because people a whole lot smarter than I tell me that that is a what they say. But "believe it", come on, NO WAY! In fact, Einstein didn't believe it was the whole story either and described some fascinating system of gravity as a web that someday will probably take the spinning theory's place.

Don't get me wrong. I am not anti-science. I actually accept all of these things as theories, or at least as very likely theories that the smart and intelligent people I seem to think give us pretty good explanations. The things I believe in are those I can see and verify for myself. So, therefore, I believe that the sun rises and I believe that balls drop. I accept that earth and sun revolve around each other and that they are both hurtling through space. I accept that the ball and earth are attracted together and that together they are part of some gigantic web or something. That is OK. I can accept these things without troubling myself about really understanding them any better than the simple way I explained them above.

I invite any readers to explain it to me better and disabuse me of my mis-understandings, but I doubt I will ever reach the point of thinking that I really believe them. They are theories designed to explain, in a consistent manner, what we see but can't explain. In a way, it is something of a convenience.

This all brings me back to things spiritual. I don't know if I believe in God the same way I conceptualize God or the same way that many others might do so. What I believe in is a power of good or of love so much greater than anything I can really understand. I believe this because I have experienced it, usually through other people. I also believe that I have felt that power of love acting in my life, greater than anything I can do on my own. This, I can believe, is God. It is like my belief that the sun will rise and that the ball will drop. I have been fortunate to have had these experiences, even sometimes during great spiritual pain or dryness. Now that is talking about something of convenience!

It doesn't stop there however. Wise and well meaning people have developed theories that tie these and other strands of my religion or even other religions into notions and theories that seek to explain it all. I like to think about the concepts discussed, but I don't dwell on trying to understand them. Anyway, they are called mysteries. Mysteries invite us to enter into deep and profound thought. But people proclaiming that they know mysteries, may just be putting limiting something way beyond the human ability to limit.

Now, I can accept many of these popular theories of god, just as I accept Newton's or Einstein's theory of gravity. But, when I put all of the helps and experiences of love that I have had, that is what I call my belief in God.

McCarville/McCarvill Reunion

Last weekend, Haydee and I and Sean and Nancy attended a McCarville/McCarvill reunion in Clarksville, Md.

We have never been sure how our branch of the family (the Owen McCarville-Jane Lynch group) fit into the rest of these honorable McCarvilles. They all trace their ancestry back to a Thomas McCarville in a family tree that we are not really part of. It was the first time we ever met with this group.

We met many new friends, two of them called Jim McCarville. One Jim McCarville, the one from Minneapolis, told me of the family DNA project that has conclusively proved we have a common ancestor. We just don't know how far back. (By the way, he graciously offered to host the reunion next year in Minneapolis.)

We met another family with a Jim McCarville from Buffalo. They are all big hockey fans and promised to come to see a game at the Igloo before it closes in 2009-2010. By the way, the Buffalo McCarville's don't know how they fit into the Thomas tree either.

I got to argue about whether my friend, old King McCarville, qualified for the definition of a "High King" (I thought so). I bought the updated McCarville/McCarvill CD and went out today to by the Family Tree Maker software. (I should have more updates in the future.) The great T-shirts were worth the trip alone!

It was great that Nancy came along, she is a Gilbert with her own stories, but (and this was my favorite part), she listened so patiently to all of ours.

We stayed at the Inn at Peralynna Manor that we found on Mapquest. It looked like a corporate retreat or wedding reception place that was not otherwise booked for this weekend. The food was fantastic and the service very attentive. The decor was a tad on the over-opulent or even faux opulent side. One of our group, who will remain nameless, said it looked like it was decorated by Michael Jackson, But none of this is to say it detracted from our stay. In fact, it just added to a really great weekend.