This project/blog is where I will, in great detail, explore science, faith, religion, reason, and their role in modern life. Unlike other blogs I've done, this blog has a very specific end goal. It will become a book when some kind of critical mass of writing on my part has been complete, and the feedback I receive during its writing will be used to shape the book.

Why am I writing this?

Why I am writing this book is a long story, and will, I imagine come through as I write. It is as simple as these facts: I have been deeply immersed in both faith and science for my whole life. I have a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University, and a Certificate of Theological Studies from Pacific School of Religion. I have never found conflict within myself between my own faith and science, even though I have seen, heard and experienced that conflict in others, and in this country in particular. I am, in a way, uniquely placed to write this particular book. I adhere to no faith tradition completely, and as much as I love science, I agree with many critiques of it. I have thought about these issues ever since I was seventeen, when even as I was preparing for a life in science, I joined a church where many people were "young Earth creationists," and I couldn't understand why having a young earth mattered to them so much.

We live in a time when the plurality of people in the United States think that God created humans in our present form, and as many people think that Darwin's theory of evolution is supported by evidence as those who think that it is not. [1] Most people like science [2], but yet we live in a time when there are large differences in perception about human-caused global climate change based on political persuasion, and many people don't listen to the scientific consensus about it. [3]

I was prompted to write this book by reading a recent editorial in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof [4], who was trying hard to help people not paint all Evangelical Christians with the same brush. It wasn't his article, per se, but it was in the comments that I could see the polarization - both the fundamentalists and the atheists were talking about how self-evident their positions were, while those in the middle seemed silenced by those two sides. 

The extreme voices are the problem - those on one hand of the fundamentalist Christians  (who, unlike either Catholics, or fundamentalists of other faiths seem to have the most problem with science,) who insist that their scripture is inerrant, and their faith is the correct one,  and on the other the atheists who insist that all faiths are make-believe and it is time to give up our "imaginary friends." Those voices drown out all others. They drown out people of faith who have no problem with evolution, and an Earth that is billions of years old, and they drown out agnostics, who, truly following the principles of science, and set the God stuff aside.

There are many who have staked out the middle ground, and I'm just another one coming along. What I hope to add to the middle ground is more than just "there need be no conflict." I want to delve deep into why the conflict exists, and also what science has to learn from faith and vice-versa. In a sense, I guess, I want to forge a "middle way."

I am sure that there are many on all sides of this debate who will not like what I have to say. I at least hope that some of them can give some thought to what I have put down here. I look forward to feedback as I write from people on any side of the debate.

There are two basic principals that I will endeavor to uphold as I write this book. First, is that I will do my best to respect the theories and beliefs of any tradition that I discuss, no matter what it is. Second, I will endeavor to back up everything that is not clearly stated as my own opinion with literature, whether it be scientific, historical, philosophical, or theological. 

I will be traversing the territories of history, neuroscience, cosmology, philosophy, evolution, theology and politics. I'll touch on theologians, both past and present, atheists and agnostic thinkers old and new, neuroscientists learning about differences in brains of "olympic meditators," and many, many others. You'll hear about creationism, intelligent design, as well as feminist, anti-racist and post-modernist critiques of science.

The real goal of all this work is to do my own level best to begin my own little tiny path to a new synthesis. What that synthesis could be will emerge as I write, and as you read, but the idea is a synthesis that can strengthen both types of human knowing - science and faith.

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx 

[2] http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

[3] http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/ClimateChange-Views-RepublicanDemocratic-Gaps-Expand.aspx

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/kristof-evangelicals-without-blowhards.html