Deeper than Rudenstine

There may be interesting connections between the recent evolution-creationism debates (and posts) and Dean Rudenstine’s definition of faith as “a willingness to accept belief in things for which we have no evidence, or which runs counter to evidence we have." The source of the tension in both cases is the presupposition that one language (either that of “science” - or that of faith) is sufficient to describe human life or experience. I am recently back from a terrific conference on the Science-Faith Dialogue put together by Metanexus. (I have no hidden science background! As part of their “Global University” track I was presenting the Focolare’s two-week interdisciplinary international summer school for college and graduates students to explore the connections between faith and academic life). The tribute to Teilhard de Chardin included a terrific presentation by John Haught (Georgetown). In his recent book, Deeper than Darwin (2003), he explores how both science and religion can be bearers of “truth,” and describes science and religion as different but compatible “reading levels.” “Even though Darwinism is illuminating, it by no means tells us everything we need to know about life, even in principle.” The developing science-faith dialogue, and the description of different “reading levels” may have much to teach us as we grapple with similar arguments, and with “red state-blue state” tensions in the legal education forum.