The New Cosmic Story Inside our Awakening Universe

This is because the universe itself cannot be defined by reported history and past experiences which cannot be proved by science. Religion is part of the cosmic story but it is mostly omitted by scientists who examine the story of the universe. Therefore, John Haught addresses this issue in this book because religious experience is part of the inside story of the universe. Religious opinions have been passed from one human generation to the next in figurative forms that are impracticable to science. Scientific history does not consider religious experience seriously and John Haught is convinced that understanding of the cosmic story can only be achieved by incorporating the religious point of view and the scientific approach to the story of the universe.

They advocate for universal virtues such as love, empathy and honesty among others. The religious traditions stresses on the rigid nature of religion and the absolute reason why human beings seek its goodness and perfection. People get aware of the rightness of religion and cannot deny appreciating it. Haught emphasizes that rightness is the word that can define religion since that is what divinity foreshadows and respects. Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) illustrates religion as something which is transcendent, real and still under the process of realization. Due to the dramatic turn of events, it is impossible to predict what the future holds for human beings and the universe. Anybody willing to know the truth of a story especially the cosmic story must be willing to go underneath and come up with concrete content about the story.

However, it is unfortunate that even those who want to find the in-depth content of the narrative cosmic stories are satisfied with the shallow narrations provided to them. This creates the assumption that those stories carry no hidden meaning or content. Furthermore, there are religious naturalists who interpret holy books cheaply thus; leading to the emergence of wrongness and unpleasant behaviors in our world presently. This indicates that our origin is a transformation of the long-gone creatures that used to exist. Hence, there is no clear indication by science that our existence was expected nor predicted. We seem to be from a cosmic perspective and not a special approach like that of the religion. Haught thinks that the universe is in the process of awakening because even the scientists tend not to unleash the hidden depth of the universe and how human life came into existence.

Thus, their accounts need to be balanced with the search for a new understanding of religion in the age of science. Coyne claims that scientific discoveries are not compatible with religion but Haught argues that those discoveries are limited to external drama only. In addition, those discoveries have got an internal drama that scientists do not put into consideration thus rendering their discoveries limited. Coyne brings forth the argument between science and religion and states that if the two fields had been found compatible then the dialogue about their consonance would have been terminated way back. Instead, he points its increase by the high number of programmes and courses enrolled with an aim of harmonizing science and religion and denotes this as an affirmation of a dispute.

Peculiarly, the high material being produced for example along New Atheist course over the past several years that proclaims for a conflict can be a sign of compatibility. Many non- believers experience no problems at all with scientific naturalism and totally offer their support for it. Those who also do not believe in God belief there is a strong connection between science and religion due to the human nature, free will, ethics and consciousness that science alone cannot explain. Modern natural theologians consider adjusting especially model disputes on its own basis (e. g. , R. My constant criticism of his view is that he constantly tries to establish that science and religion are incompatible by proving specific religions incorrect, which is not enough to demonstrate any kind of interesting philosophical incompatibility; if a religion is proven factually incorrect, then the members of that religion perhaps should abandon it, but that does not mean that they must give up the idea of a god or accept naturalism mean construct and we know there is nothing behind it.