I have a stu\u00addent tak\u00ading a soci\u00adol\u00ado\u00adgy of reli\u00adgion course right now, and she asked me for some advice on how to inte\u00adgrate what she\u2019s learn\u00ading in class with her faith. <\/p>\n
I thought this might be of inter\u00adest to more stu\u00addents than just her, so here\u2019s what I had to say (slight\u00adly mod\u00adi\u00adfied from the email):<\/p>\n
\nWe need to meet face-to-face to talk this through, but I have some ini\u00adtial thoughts for you:<\/p>\n
1) Many times we con\u00adfuse descrip\u00adtion with expla\u00adna\u00adtion. To explain how some\u00adthing works is not to explain why it is. Clear\u00adly every\u00adthing must work some way, and so inter\u00adest\u00ading descrip\u00adtions of every\u00adthing ought to abound \u2014 I should be able to describe think\u00ading, love, humor, and grav\u00adi\u00adty. But that does not mean that I have under\u00adstood the things I am describ\u00ading inter\u00adest\u00ading aspects of. For instance, I can describe the physics of golf in great detail, and then anoth\u00ader schol\u00adar can come along and describe the rules of golf in great detail, and then a third schol\u00adar can come along and describe the his\u00adto\u00adry of golf in great detail. All of these descrip\u00adtions may be accu\u00adrate, but none of these descrip\u00adtions will explain why I play golf. And none will cap\u00adture what it feels like to play golf. And like\u00adly none of them, if writ\u00adten for a schol\u00adar\u00adly audi\u00adence, will be of the slight\u00adest use to golfers desir\u00ading to hone their craft. Remem\u00adber that there is a soci\u00adol\u00ado\u00adgy of mar\u00adriage, but should you become mar\u00adried one day you will dis\u00adcov\u00ader that there is a lev\u00adel of real\u00adi\u00adty that the soci\u00ado\u00adlog\u00adi\u00adcal descrip\u00adtions nev\u00ader ade\u00adquate\u00adly com\u00admu\u00adni\u00adcat\u00aded.<\/p>\n
2) If you assume there is no God at the begin\u00adning of your analy\u00adsis then your analy\u00adsis will not per\u00adsuade me that there is no God, for how could it con\u00adclude any\u00adthing else? It reminds me of a sto\u00adry Fran\u00adcis Collins told us last year: \u201cA marine biol\u00ado\u00adgist casts a net into the low\u00adest part of the ocean, brings up the catch, and ana\u00adlyzes it. He makes an amaz\u00ading dis\u00adcov\u00adery: there is no crea\u00adture at the bot\u00adtom of the sea less than two inch\u00ades in diam\u00ade\u00adter! The prob\u00adlem, of course, is that his net has two inch holes. It is inca\u00adpable of dis\u00adcov\u00ader\u00ading any\u00adthing small\u00ader than its mesh.\u201d In the same way, a method\u00adol\u00ado\u00adgy that rules out the super\u00adnat\u00adur\u00adal from the begin\u00adning will nev\u00ader dis\u00adcov\u00ader evi\u00addence of the super\u00adnat\u00adur\u00adal. This should not be sur\u00adpris\u00ading at all.<\/p>\n
3) There are some faith-friend\u00adly soci\u00adol\u00ado\u00adgists out there. Three worth
\ninves\u00adti\u00adgat\u00ading are Rod\u00adney Stark<\/a> free fear house<\/a><\/u> <\/p>\n