My thinking is that we could identify genes that have expressed in ways that maximize compassion, maybe even track the development of portions of the brain, measure brain response to stimulae, perhaps even measure levels of neuro-transmitters, etc. These would explain the "how" of Mother Theresa's compassion, but not the "why".
Of course, some folks say there is no why - the how is all there is.
One problem with supernatural explanations is that there is nothing to study because what happened was "not natural." As science has developed, we understand more - so, for example, we can describe the neuro-chemical changes that accompany love, and soon, I would expect us to identify the a genetic and / or developmental basis for the ability to experience an enhanced level of compassion. It may be supernatural, but even a miracle is manifested in the natural world- and so leaves clues that can be studied.
This is one reason that I am unsatisfied with the god in the gaps approach to faith. I think it is safe to suggest (though of course not proved) that everything we experience is mediated through some physical (natural) process. So far, we have not had to resort to the idea that some supernatural agency is required to keep everything going (though I've read that it gets a bit murky down in the quantum foam).
For example, I once prayed for someone with a bum knee. When I put my hand on the knee and he flexed it, I could feel roughness in the knee joint (felt like there was gravel beneath his kneecap). He told me that it hurt. After a few minutes of prayer, when he flexed his knee, it moved smoothly, and he told me that it did not hurt. I could have been mistaken, in the grip of some sort of mass hysteria, or the person with the complaint could have been a well-practiced fake. And I recognize that my story is just that- proof of nothing except that I said I had such an experience. All the same, if the right detection equipment were available, I would expect that each step of (what I believe to have been) a healing would have been measurable in the natural world.
If his knee was bum, and a few minutes later it was not, was that supernatural? Assume for a moment that it was not, and that bodies have some sort of untapped (at least in the western medical tradition) recuperative power. Shouldn't we study that and find out about it?
What if I was indeed mistaken, or he experienced some sort of placebo effect. I, at least, would like to know.
What if it was a miracle from God? What is the harm in trying to figure it out? What if we refused to look for natural causes, because "it was a miracle, and the healing cannot be explained without including God in the explanation." What good would that do us? I suggest we look at the facts and conclude 1. There was no healing. or 2. There was a healing, but we don't understand how it happened (but we might someday, by careful observation, figure out what happened, and apply the results to the practice of medicine, miracle or no). Of course there is a 3. it was a miracle, and no amount of science will ever tell us what went on. But how will we know if we don't try?
Not looking because it is a miracle, or giving up because "God did it" serves no purpose - this attitude would have prevented us from ever training a telescope on the heavens (after all, we would be peeking into God's realm).
So from a purely pragmatic view, methodological naturalism is the best approach to take as a scientist (and probably in most day-to-day activities), even if it does not encompass the entirety of a person's philosophy.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Where do we go when we die?
Some people wonder how humans got here, and if there is a purpose in life.
A parachurch organization was out canvassing people, trying to engage them in religious dialouge. One exchange went like this:
Q - "Do you know where you go when you die?"
A - "Uh, Pittsburg. I'll be buried in Pittsburg."
Not everyone asks "ultimate" questions.
Many religions offer an answer to the questions of where we came from, where we are going, and why we are here. If I am honest, I say that science also offers an answer. We came from organic molecules, and we return to organic molecules. We are here to pass on our genes (and we are being used by the bacteria in our gut so they can pass on their genes).
I also think that this answer is true. It is useful. It tells me all sorts of true and helpful things about me, the people around me, and the world I live in. Is it all there is? Is it the only answer? I don't think so. Can I proove it? Not in the scientific sense.
Does that mean science is a religion, or that science and religion are in competition? No. I think religion involves some sort of revelation (received truth) and postualtes the existence of the supernatural (but where does that leave some eastern religions?).
I think science constantly revises its dogma (but is full of the hide-bound, conservative, and the agenda-laden - that is to say- humans). What was believed about the world in the 18th century is different in many important respects from what science believes today. This is an admirable and fairly unique claim.
Because science claims to say what is true about the natural world, it will always run afoul of those who, for religious, commercial or political motives, wish to assert that the world is somehow else.
A parachurch organization was out canvassing people, trying to engage them in religious dialouge. One exchange went like this:
Q - "Do you know where you go when you die?"
A - "Uh, Pittsburg. I'll be buried in Pittsburg."
Not everyone asks "ultimate" questions.
Many religions offer an answer to the questions of where we came from, where we are going, and why we are here. If I am honest, I say that science also offers an answer. We came from organic molecules, and we return to organic molecules. We are here to pass on our genes (and we are being used by the bacteria in our gut so they can pass on their genes).
I also think that this answer is true. It is useful. It tells me all sorts of true and helpful things about me, the people around me, and the world I live in. Is it all there is? Is it the only answer? I don't think so. Can I proove it? Not in the scientific sense.
Does that mean science is a religion, or that science and religion are in competition? No. I think religion involves some sort of revelation (received truth) and postualtes the existence of the supernatural (but where does that leave some eastern religions?).
I think science constantly revises its dogma (but is full of the hide-bound, conservative, and the agenda-laden - that is to say- humans). What was believed about the world in the 18th century is different in many important respects from what science believes today. This is an admirable and fairly unique claim.
Because science claims to say what is true about the natural world, it will always run afoul of those who, for religious, commercial or political motives, wish to assert that the world is somehow else.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Can People of Faith and Science Talk?
I think much of the frustration in the dialouge betwen conservative Christians and people who believe in science comes from the scientists' belief that these theories have been founded, not only on good objective evidence, but much of it on overwhelming objective evidence. So much so that it is totally reasonable to expect the other, less well supported ideas to accumulate a similarly overwhelming degree of proof.
Yet those in the YEC camp seem unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads. And not just remain unconvinced, but call the ToE a fairy tale, or impossible. This adherence to an a priori belief, incapable of refutation, makes reasoned argument difficult.
You ask, does science contain truth. I think of the discoveries of science as the end product of truth. No matter how we got here, here we are. No matter how we got here, we share DNA with primitive single-celled creatures. We share the inability to make vitiman C with those animals we have descended from, while many of those we did not descend from can synthesise C. These are facts. What they mean, and how that story unfolded is becoming more clear. As this happens, the kind of role God played in this process is more precisely understood, because we are eliminating things that God did not do. For example, God did not create the world 6,000 years ago, and God did not create each species more-or-less in their present form.
So here is the debate. These facts ar not in dispuit, except by those who have a religious need for them to be true. Since they have to be true for YECs, discussion and proof of facts are very difficult. Introducing the kind of special pleading carried out by folks attempting to proove YEC is not, and never will be, science.
Not that there isn't a rich and fruitful dialouge to be had between faith and science. Science is revealing a world of head-scratching wonder, which leads many materialists to wonder if there isn't something more. Many people of faith follow the unfolding drama of scientific discovery with awe, wonder and worship. I certainly find my faith deepened, challenged, and even sometimes corrected as I follow after scientists who are uncovering the How of creation.
Yet those in the YEC camp seem unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads. And not just remain unconvinced, but call the ToE a fairy tale, or impossible. This adherence to an a priori belief, incapable of refutation, makes reasoned argument difficult.
You ask, does science contain truth. I think of the discoveries of science as the end product of truth. No matter how we got here, here we are. No matter how we got here, we share DNA with primitive single-celled creatures. We share the inability to make vitiman C with those animals we have descended from, while many of those we did not descend from can synthesise C. These are facts. What they mean, and how that story unfolded is becoming more clear. As this happens, the kind of role God played in this process is more precisely understood, because we are eliminating things that God did not do. For example, God did not create the world 6,000 years ago, and God did not create each species more-or-less in their present form.
So here is the debate. These facts ar not in dispuit, except by those who have a religious need for them to be true. Since they have to be true for YECs, discussion and proof of facts are very difficult. Introducing the kind of special pleading carried out by folks attempting to proove YEC is not, and never will be, science.
Not that there isn't a rich and fruitful dialouge to be had between faith and science. Science is revealing a world of head-scratching wonder, which leads many materialists to wonder if there isn't something more. Many people of faith follow the unfolding drama of scientific discovery with awe, wonder and worship. I certainly find my faith deepened, challenged, and even sometimes corrected as I follow after scientists who are uncovering the How of creation.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Is ID a Myth?
Prof. Mirecki from KU recently stated that ID was a myth. This has caused a bit of an uproar, with Dr. Mirecki being branded a "Fred Phelps" for his bigoted view of the Christian religion.
Religious beliefs have been discussed as myths for years in religious studies programs throughout the US. Schools of religion tend to teach religion as an academic subject, not as an Truth. That is, the content of the faith constitutes their myths- stories of how things came to be, and why things are as they are.
When Mirecki says what he did, he is stating that ID belongs in his discipline, not in the discipline of science. At the very least, it belongs in his discipline, because it is a self-consciously religious (even Christian) subject. What is more, it is being promoted by Christian groups like IDEA precisely because it furthers their religious agenda.
It certainly does not make him Fred Phelps. Mirecki claimed something that is true - ID is a type of creationism, which is a core part of most mythologies. In the terminology of his profession, it is a myth. That he also believes it to be untrue is his right (could any professor of religion believe everything about every religion they teach?) - that he believes it is not science puts him in the company of his peers in the science department. None of this makes him a bigot.
Consider the creationists' noting that "Evolution is only a theory." For people not familiar with the use of the term in science circles, mistaking the word "theory" for the popular cognate "guess" is understandable. For otherwise educated people to make this mistake is bewildering - and for them to perpetuate the misunderstanding once it is pointed out is demagoguery.
While the faithful of any religion do not like an academic treating the truths of their faith as subjects of critical scrutiny, this is what the academic discipline is about. To make a big fuss about this is spreading a deliberate misunderstanding, which is a contemptible activity, to my way of thinking - far worse than a university professor not believing in ID.
Religious beliefs have been discussed as myths for years in religious studies programs throughout the US. Schools of religion tend to teach religion as an academic subject, not as an Truth. That is, the content of the faith constitutes their myths- stories of how things came to be, and why things are as they are.
When Mirecki says what he did, he is stating that ID belongs in his discipline, not in the discipline of science. At the very least, it belongs in his discipline, because it is a self-consciously religious (even Christian) subject. What is more, it is being promoted by Christian groups like IDEA precisely because it furthers their religious agenda.
It certainly does not make him Fred Phelps. Mirecki claimed something that is true - ID is a type of creationism, which is a core part of most mythologies. In the terminology of his profession, it is a myth. That he also believes it to be untrue is his right (could any professor of religion believe everything about every religion they teach?) - that he believes it is not science puts him in the company of his peers in the science department. None of this makes him a bigot.
Consider the creationists' noting that "Evolution is only a theory." For people not familiar with the use of the term in science circles, mistaking the word "theory" for the popular cognate "guess" is understandable. For otherwise educated people to make this mistake is bewildering - and for them to perpetuate the misunderstanding once it is pointed out is demagoguery.
While the faithful of any religion do not like an academic treating the truths of their faith as subjects of critical scrutiny, this is what the academic discipline is about. To make a big fuss about this is spreading a deliberate misunderstanding, which is a contemptible activity, to my way of thinking - far worse than a university professor not believing in ID.
And What About Darwin?
Darwin was a human, working in an age of relative ignorance, and his writing represents an incremental advance toward understanding that has been improved upon over time. What is undeniable is that his approach won out, not because it was a piece of revealed truth, perfect in every word, from a person of perfect understanding and intellect, but because his ideas were fruitful. Others tried hard to advance different approches- they were not censored by an intellectual establishment, but fell aside when the evidence did not support them. Darwin is considered great in retrospect- because his ideas worked, and he was able to see (however partially) when many of those around him did not. His name is given to the theory because he was an early articulator, not because he wrote an evolutionist's bible, or because he is the world's greatest authority. He lit a lamp (though not him only), by which others continued the journey.
Now creationists are forced to revisionist history, trying to invent atheist cabals and satanic plots in order to discredit the output of hundreds of years of science and the work of tens of thousands of people (many of them Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Moslem etc.). The world is as it is. It is old, life evolved, the universe is unimaginably vast. Did God make all this? We can't tell, what does your heart say? If you experience some Thou speaking to you, then you need to be willing to wrestle with what God has done in creation - (including evolution). Unless you worship a trixter god, who has made the world an illusion to test the faithful, of course. But then, if the world is an illusion, why discuss science at all?
Now creationists are forced to revisionist history, trying to invent atheist cabals and satanic plots in order to discredit the output of hundreds of years of science and the work of tens of thousands of people (many of them Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Moslem etc.). The world is as it is. It is old, life evolved, the universe is unimaginably vast. Did God make all this? We can't tell, what does your heart say? If you experience some Thou speaking to you, then you need to be willing to wrestle with what God has done in creation - (including evolution). Unless you worship a trixter god, who has made the world an illusion to test the faithful, of course. But then, if the world is an illusion, why discuss science at all?
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Save us From True Believers
True believers are certain that they understand the bible and read it correctly - and believe it to be authoritative over matters both spiritual and natural. They have a simple and honest faith, reflecting the New Testament. Eveyone else who is religious are the lukewarm, who will be spit out of Jesus' mouth (Rev 3:16).
Then there are the scientists, who do not recognize the authority of the bible to say anything at all about the natural world.
There is no common ground here. The founding fathers lived in memory of Puritan pastors banned from coming anywhere near their parishes, protestant versus catholic pogroms, and all sorts of bitter contest between rival factions, each claiming to have the ONE TRUE FAITH. You would think that this bloody and shameful history would at leach teach believers humility - but it does not seem to be working.
My hope is that the constitution will continue to defend us from true believers.
Then there are the scientists, who do not recognize the authority of the bible to say anything at all about the natural world.
There is no common ground here. The founding fathers lived in memory of Puritan pastors banned from coming anywhere near their parishes, protestant versus catholic pogroms, and all sorts of bitter contest between rival factions, each claiming to have the ONE TRUE FAITH. You would think that this bloody and shameful history would at leach teach believers humility - but it does not seem to be working.
My hope is that the constitution will continue to defend us from true believers.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Does the supernatural exist?
Consider that most supernatural events in the Bible have explanations - causes - associated with them. For example, God causes the sun to stand still (Joshua 10:12), to allow the Israelites more time to defeat their enemies. Consider that these explanations were seen as perfectly reasonable within the understanding of physics and cosmology of the day. Gods and other supernatural beings were seen as being able to manipulate the world - to exert force- just on a scale and to an effect not available to mortals. The concept of supernatural precedes naturalism - it is a later gloss to view the supernatural as a violation of natural laws. The gods acted naturally to the pre-scientific mind, just more potently.
As such, I propose that a better definition for the supernatural is simply those things done directly by God. This acknowledges the unexceptional admission that most stuff “just happens,” but sometimes God intervenes directly in the world. It is this direct action, and not the mechanism, that defines supernaturalism.
The mind exposed to the scientific method (however superficially) expects to find "real world" evidence of God's activities. Many Christians, for example, regularly attest to concrete experiences of God's activity - the activity of the supernatural - in their lives. For that matter, large numbers of people see ghosts, experience physic effects, contact the dead, receive spiritual, emotional and physical healing, experience strange coincidences, act on unexplained urges that result in them taking actions that save themselves and others from harm - in short, it is nature of the experience, not the scientist’s understanding of its causation, that marks something as supernatural in most folks eyes.
The recent focus on studies that investigate intercessory prayer, and the explorations of Intelligent Design, are examples of this process of looking for the fingerprint of God in the accumulated experience of daily living. If you believe in a God who acts in the world, you expect (insist?) on finding this proof – how could it be otherwise? If you believe in a God who is somewhat more subtle, you may have lowered expectations for the result of these investigations.
Today’s difficulty is that we don’t understand the mechanism of many of the miracles. For example, in Joshua 10:12, both the sun and moon stand still – which I take to mean that the earth was halted in its rotation. Here is a particularly interesting case study for literalism, by the way, because if the sun was stopped in its movement through space (relative to the earth?) would it have made any difference to the length of the day? In any event, we don’t know how to stop the earth’s rotation, what with all the problems that that would entail. But that does not mean that God could not have done it. My objection to the traditional notion of supernaturalism is that it does not imply that we don’t understand the mechanism, but that there could have been no (natural) mechanism (with the caveat that, since supernaturalism = not following any natural process, the religious can imagine anything they want happened).
When most religious folks I know talk about the activity of the supernatural, they don’t speak of non-natural mechanisms; they speak of concrete manifestations of the power of God in the world.
But the question is, “Does the supernatural exist?” My personal response is that if it does, it will leave evidence. I recognize that it is not enough to show that people of a particular religion act, in aggregate, in a way that demonstrates Devine intervention, or that something occurred (a healing, for example) that confounds medical experts. You will also have to show that there are no “natural” explanations. This is made even more difficult by the fact that ruling out all known causes does not rule out the possibility that some natural cause exists that has not yet been identified. In fact, this is the “God in the gaps” approach to the supernatural – find something that cannot be explained, and attribute it to God’s direct intervention.
Many people of faith have accepted this working definition of the supernatural, and believe that sufficient evidence has been provided to convince them of God’s intervention in “ordinary” life. Personally, I have experienced many things that I attribute to the supernatural – so I say it exists. Can I prove it? Well, I am fairly perplexed that when I look at broad measures of Christian behavior, I fail to see the significant differences I expect.
As such, I propose that a better definition for the supernatural is simply those things done directly by God. This acknowledges the unexceptional admission that most stuff “just happens,” but sometimes God intervenes directly in the world. It is this direct action, and not the mechanism, that defines supernaturalism.
The mind exposed to the scientific method (however superficially) expects to find "real world" evidence of God's activities. Many Christians, for example, regularly attest to concrete experiences of God's activity - the activity of the supernatural - in their lives. For that matter, large numbers of people see ghosts, experience physic effects, contact the dead, receive spiritual, emotional and physical healing, experience strange coincidences, act on unexplained urges that result in them taking actions that save themselves and others from harm - in short, it is nature of the experience, not the scientist’s understanding of its causation, that marks something as supernatural in most folks eyes.
The recent focus on studies that investigate intercessory prayer, and the explorations of Intelligent Design, are examples of this process of looking for the fingerprint of God in the accumulated experience of daily living. If you believe in a God who acts in the world, you expect (insist?) on finding this proof – how could it be otherwise? If you believe in a God who is somewhat more subtle, you may have lowered expectations for the result of these investigations.
Today’s difficulty is that we don’t understand the mechanism of many of the miracles. For example, in Joshua 10:12, both the sun and moon stand still – which I take to mean that the earth was halted in its rotation. Here is a particularly interesting case study for literalism, by the way, because if the sun was stopped in its movement through space (relative to the earth?) would it have made any difference to the length of the day? In any event, we don’t know how to stop the earth’s rotation, what with all the problems that that would entail. But that does not mean that God could not have done it. My objection to the traditional notion of supernaturalism is that it does not imply that we don’t understand the mechanism, but that there could have been no (natural) mechanism (with the caveat that, since supernaturalism = not following any natural process, the religious can imagine anything they want happened).
When most religious folks I know talk about the activity of the supernatural, they don’t speak of non-natural mechanisms; they speak of concrete manifestations of the power of God in the world.
But the question is, “Does the supernatural exist?” My personal response is that if it does, it will leave evidence. I recognize that it is not enough to show that people of a particular religion act, in aggregate, in a way that demonstrates Devine intervention, or that something occurred (a healing, for example) that confounds medical experts. You will also have to show that there are no “natural” explanations. This is made even more difficult by the fact that ruling out all known causes does not rule out the possibility that some natural cause exists that has not yet been identified. In fact, this is the “God in the gaps” approach to the supernatural – find something that cannot be explained, and attribute it to God’s direct intervention.
Many people of faith have accepted this working definition of the supernatural, and believe that sufficient evidence has been provided to convince them of God’s intervention in “ordinary” life. Personally, I have experienced many things that I attribute to the supernatural – so I say it exists. Can I prove it? Well, I am fairly perplexed that when I look at broad measures of Christian behavior, I fail to see the significant differences I expect.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Kansas Board of Education Vote
Of course there are people who view science as giving them an intellectual justification for rejecting religion. In the same way, many people find that they must distance themselves from science in order to keep hold of their faith. Then there are some who try to keep hold of both. What is very clear is that this involves some compromise.
While some people insist they hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible (for example), they do in fact hold a much more liberal view than the original hearers. Obvious examples for conservative Christians are the fact that the earth circles the sun, the stars are not fixed in the sky, that snow is not stored in storehouses, and that creatures are not spontaneously generated from the earth (as Genesis 1 implies, and as was widely held until recently).
Science will from time-to-time demonstrate facts that contradict aspects of one religion or another. The constitution does not protect religion from such "attacks," nor should it. What is more normal, and what is happening here, is that science is being attacked by religion, and truth is being suppressed in order to support the YEC view of Genesis. This is also fine (though depressing), just not in the public education system.
One thing hasn't changed - some people think God is found in the gaps of our understanding about the natural world. I for one tire of the constant retreat to just beyond the frontiers of science, where my co-religionists throw taunts - "You'll never figure this one out!" Oh. "I meant this - you'll never figure this out!" Oh...
My own personal frustration with this anti-science position is that it sacrifices science to defend creationism.
Never mind that it encourages superstition and bigotry (because that is what is left when you remove the truth).
Never mind that it opens the door to astrology, para-psychology and a host of other superstitious errors demanding equal time on exactly the same basis as creationism is being ushered in.
Never mind that it teaches students that truth is whatever you want it to be - the exact mind state desired by racists and demagogues of all stripes.
Never mind that it waters down science by introducing all sorts of special pleading- a real turn-off for the few folks left who want to get on with it.
Never mind that it forces us to pretend that we know less than we do, and pretend that we seriously consider ideologically-motivated fantasy and reasoning from "first principles" as equal to the results of scientific discovery.
After all the special pleading, apologetics, distortions, lies and mis-information, it is truth that will have suffered, kids' education that will have suffered- and only to promote a YEC-view of Genesis. This is what is frustrating about the KBE decision.
For what it is worth, as the election after the last KBE decision like this showed, and as the recent vote in Dover emphasized, this kind of nonsense does not represent the will of the people. It represents how special interest groups can "storm the gates" and pack the board. When the general population wakes up, they rectify the situation. I'll be looking for ways to help rectify this come the next election.
While some people insist they hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible (for example), they do in fact hold a much more liberal view than the original hearers. Obvious examples for conservative Christians are the fact that the earth circles the sun, the stars are not fixed in the sky, that snow is not stored in storehouses, and that creatures are not spontaneously generated from the earth (as Genesis 1 implies, and as was widely held until recently).
Science will from time-to-time demonstrate facts that contradict aspects of one religion or another. The constitution does not protect religion from such "attacks," nor should it. What is more normal, and what is happening here, is that science is being attacked by religion, and truth is being suppressed in order to support the YEC view of Genesis. This is also fine (though depressing), just not in the public education system.
One thing hasn't changed - some people think God is found in the gaps of our understanding about the natural world. I for one tire of the constant retreat to just beyond the frontiers of science, where my co-religionists throw taunts - "You'll never figure this one out!" Oh. "I meant this - you'll never figure this out!" Oh...
My own personal frustration with this anti-science position is that it sacrifices science to defend creationism.
Never mind that it encourages superstition and bigotry (because that is what is left when you remove the truth).
Never mind that it opens the door to astrology, para-psychology and a host of other superstitious errors demanding equal time on exactly the same basis as creationism is being ushered in.
Never mind that it teaches students that truth is whatever you want it to be - the exact mind state desired by racists and demagogues of all stripes.
Never mind that it waters down science by introducing all sorts of special pleading- a real turn-off for the few folks left who want to get on with it.
Never mind that it forces us to pretend that we know less than we do, and pretend that we seriously consider ideologically-motivated fantasy and reasoning from "first principles" as equal to the results of scientific discovery.
After all the special pleading, apologetics, distortions, lies and mis-information, it is truth that will have suffered, kids' education that will have suffered- and only to promote a YEC-view of Genesis. This is what is frustrating about the KBE decision.
For what it is worth, as the election after the last KBE decision like this showed, and as the recent vote in Dover emphasized, this kind of nonsense does not represent the will of the people. It represents how special interest groups can "storm the gates" and pack the board. When the general population wakes up, they rectify the situation. I'll be looking for ways to help rectify this come the next election.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Why Does It Matter if the Bible is True?
The Bible bases its authority on a claim to be the story of God interacting with people. In a straightforward way, it makes unambiguous claims about people, places and specific occurrences. It uses these events to explain the nature of God, people and the purpose and direction of history. For example, the book of Mark contains a list of people who are ancestors of Joseph, Mary's husband, the mother of Jesus. Many of these people figure in the stories found in the books of Genesis through Chronicles, and in the prophetic books. The Bible treats these events as a demonstration of the nature of both God and people. If they did not happen, then the lessons derived from them lose authority. For example, the exile was God's response to a faithless Israel. If their captivity in Babylon had nothing to do with the quality of their interaction with God, then that changes our understanding of who God is and what he does (and is able to do). You may claim that the story is just as compelling even if it did not happen, and I will say that it is the difference between reading about having a gun pulled on you, and staring down the barrel of a gun pointed at you (I've done both, and for me at least, it is very different).
There is an alternative basis for authority- that many people have found the Bible meaningful, useful, and helpful even. This puts it on a level with a book like the Tao Te Ching (which claims no divinity for its authorship). All that is needed, perhaps, is some cultural insight to better understand what the author had in mind- no historicity is needed. Perhaps this is what is meant by the opening post in this thread. I will grant that any philosophy or religion can be admired and adhered to on this level, and it may even be viewed as in some way better or higher or finer that a philosophy that is rooted in the day-to-day. Again, I suggest it is like reading about being in love and being in love. I can understand how some people might prefer reading about it, after having been through it, but I sure vote for the real thing.
The Bible represents itself as an accurate record of the interaction of the Creator and his creation, from the beginning of time, to the end of time. If your accept that claim, you read it one way. If you reject that claim, you read it another way (or ways)- or, much more likely, just don't read it at all. If the question is, "Can the Bible be useful, even though it is largely fiction?" the answer is sure. If the question is, "Can you accept the Bible as an authoritative guide to the nature of God, people, and the purpose of history, even though many of its claims are false?" the answer probably should be no.
For many people, what gives them confidence in the Bible is that it is rooted in the facts of history. According to the Bible, God did break into history, influence the Pharaoh, the heads of the Babylonian and Persian empire, accurately describe the future, etc. In Isaiah, God is quoted as saying "My words do not come back to me empty, but accomplish the purpose for which they were sent." God is portrayed as an actor in history, not just an influencer of the private thoughts of people. It is these dry facts that demonstrate that this is God's nature. Eliminate the facts, and the very nature of God is changed. You may think this is for the better, others for the worse- but it does make a difference.
There is an alternative basis for authority- that many people have found the Bible meaningful, useful, and helpful even. This puts it on a level with a book like the Tao Te Ching (which claims no divinity for its authorship). All that is needed, perhaps, is some cultural insight to better understand what the author had in mind- no historicity is needed. Perhaps this is what is meant by the opening post in this thread. I will grant that any philosophy or religion can be admired and adhered to on this level, and it may even be viewed as in some way better or higher or finer that a philosophy that is rooted in the day-to-day. Again, I suggest it is like reading about being in love and being in love. I can understand how some people might prefer reading about it, after having been through it, but I sure vote for the real thing.
The Bible represents itself as an accurate record of the interaction of the Creator and his creation, from the beginning of time, to the end of time. If your accept that claim, you read it one way. If you reject that claim, you read it another way (or ways)- or, much more likely, just don't read it at all. If the question is, "Can the Bible be useful, even though it is largely fiction?" the answer is sure. If the question is, "Can you accept the Bible as an authoritative guide to the nature of God, people, and the purpose of history, even though many of its claims are false?" the answer probably should be no.
For many people, what gives them confidence in the Bible is that it is rooted in the facts of history. According to the Bible, God did break into history, influence the Pharaoh, the heads of the Babylonian and Persian empire, accurately describe the future, etc. In Isaiah, God is quoted as saying "My words do not come back to me empty, but accomplish the purpose for which they were sent." God is portrayed as an actor in history, not just an influencer of the private thoughts of people. It is these dry facts that demonstrate that this is God's nature. Eliminate the facts, and the very nature of God is changed. You may think this is for the better, others for the worse- but it does make a difference.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The Creationist Ghetto
Many of us have a commonsense reaction to the beauty and complexity of life - "Surely all this (myself included) is not an accident." What is more, many also believe that God says evolution didn't happen. If God said it didn't happen, and our "gut feel" is that evolution couldn't have happened, Darwin's theory is a hard pill to swallow. Evolution is not a "neutral" theory in this context; it is a direct challenge to the authority of God and our sense of place in the world.
Polls indicate that a significant number of adults reject evolution, and politicians, urged on by well-financed special interest groups and conservative religious leaders, have managed to galvanize them into voting their belief. As a result, there is strong political pressure that will (apparently) require public schools to teach that ID (and let's face it, Biblical Creationism) are valid "scientific" perspectives.
A triumph of the democratic system. The problem? Evolution, in fact, accurately explains what we see around us in the world, and successfully predicted such discoveries as DNA and dinosaurs with feathers. What is more, ID introduces religion into the classroom, which is unconstitutional. "If evolution is so strong, why worry? Just prove ID wrong," might be the response. The difficulty is that there is no way to prove ID wrong, because it makes no testable predictions. Jonathan Wells' recent attempt at responding to this criticism does not help, because even if true, the claim of design is not proven, because the mechanisms of evolution could also produce the same result. In what way does something Intelligently Designed differ from something brought into being through evolutionary processes? How can we tell that this aspect of a thing evolved, and this bit was designed? How and when was the designed bit introduced into the organism?
In the recent Dover trial, Michael Behe, a main proponent of ID, made two telling statements. First, he admitted that ID is not testable, because it has no mechanisms. Second, he offered the opinion that if ID is true, there is no point in looking for more detailed answers - ID is a science-killer. "So what?" you might respond- well, for one, you wouldn't be reading this on a computer without a scientific approach to the world. For another, we would be stuck in fear, ignorance, superstition and sickness - even more than we are - without a scientific perspective on things.
So teachers are left with the unpalatable situation of having to explain to bored and hostile students that truth is what you believe it to be. Truth not judged against any objective criteria is of limited value. Behe's arguments of complexity notwithstanding, concrete examples of ID last barely long enough for publication before they are explained away, and proponents reach for new examples. If this sounds like the old "God in the gaps" approach, that's because it is. What is more, by redefining science to consider non-natural explanations, you open the door to astrology, psychics of all persuasions, and the creation stories off all the religions - not just Christian literalists.
Rather than engage in the scientific process (for example, ID scientists could offer their own alternative explanations to their theories, and design experiments to prove their theories wrong- a normal part of mainstream science), we get well-crafted logical arguments. "Logic is fine," we should say, "but show me results! Make predictions, perform experiments! Gather data!" If James Dobson announced that he needed 10 million dollars to fund an experiment to prove that granite can form in decades under pressure, he would have the money in weeks. Where are these studies? Why won't creationists do the research?
Instead, Creationists are both the victim ("no one will publish our papers!"), and the bully ("We want ID in our schools, and we'll have it"). What creationists are doing is pushing conservative Christians into a ghetto of ignorance and fear. Ignorance because they are taught to distrust science, and to believe things (like a 6,000 year-old earth) that are not true. Fear, because they are told that the hostile world is out there trying to destroy them. It is a hostile world, but science is a tool, not an enemy. If Christians won't use the most powerful tool people have ever devised, they will end up being as relevant to our culture as the last group of science drop-outs, the Amish (but without the close-knit community).
Polls indicate that a significant number of adults reject evolution, and politicians, urged on by well-financed special interest groups and conservative religious leaders, have managed to galvanize them into voting their belief. As a result, there is strong political pressure that will (apparently) require public schools to teach that ID (and let's face it, Biblical Creationism) are valid "scientific" perspectives.
A triumph of the democratic system. The problem? Evolution, in fact, accurately explains what we see around us in the world, and successfully predicted such discoveries as DNA and dinosaurs with feathers. What is more, ID introduces religion into the classroom, which is unconstitutional. "If evolution is so strong, why worry? Just prove ID wrong," might be the response. The difficulty is that there is no way to prove ID wrong, because it makes no testable predictions. Jonathan Wells' recent attempt at responding to this criticism does not help, because even if true, the claim of design is not proven, because the mechanisms of evolution could also produce the same result. In what way does something Intelligently Designed differ from something brought into being through evolutionary processes? How can we tell that this aspect of a thing evolved, and this bit was designed? How and when was the designed bit introduced into the organism?
In the recent Dover trial, Michael Behe, a main proponent of ID, made two telling statements. First, he admitted that ID is not testable, because it has no mechanisms. Second, he offered the opinion that if ID is true, there is no point in looking for more detailed answers - ID is a science-killer. "So what?" you might respond- well, for one, you wouldn't be reading this on a computer without a scientific approach to the world. For another, we would be stuck in fear, ignorance, superstition and sickness - even more than we are - without a scientific perspective on things.
So teachers are left with the unpalatable situation of having to explain to bored and hostile students that truth is what you believe it to be. Truth not judged against any objective criteria is of limited value. Behe's arguments of complexity notwithstanding, concrete examples of ID last barely long enough for publication before they are explained away, and proponents reach for new examples. If this sounds like the old "God in the gaps" approach, that's because it is. What is more, by redefining science to consider non-natural explanations, you open the door to astrology, psychics of all persuasions, and the creation stories off all the religions - not just Christian literalists.
Rather than engage in the scientific process (for example, ID scientists could offer their own alternative explanations to their theories, and design experiments to prove their theories wrong- a normal part of mainstream science), we get well-crafted logical arguments. "Logic is fine," we should say, "but show me results! Make predictions, perform experiments! Gather data!" If James Dobson announced that he needed 10 million dollars to fund an experiment to prove that granite can form in decades under pressure, he would have the money in weeks. Where are these studies? Why won't creationists do the research?
Instead, Creationists are both the victim ("no one will publish our papers!"), and the bully ("We want ID in our schools, and we'll have it"). What creationists are doing is pushing conservative Christians into a ghetto of ignorance and fear. Ignorance because they are taught to distrust science, and to believe things (like a 6,000 year-old earth) that are not true. Fear, because they are told that the hostile world is out there trying to destroy them. It is a hostile world, but science is a tool, not an enemy. If Christians won't use the most powerful tool people have ever devised, they will end up being as relevant to our culture as the last group of science drop-outs, the Amish (but without the close-knit community).
Sunday, May 15, 2005
God in The Gaps
A recent story in Scientific American illustrates my objections to the current approach to redefining science (see the 2005 Kansas evolution debate for an example). The story concerns recent evidence that some values we think of as constant have changed over time, and mentions in passing how unconnected these constants seem to be to each other(here is a link to a summary).
This is the point when the Intelligent Design movement steps in with the comment, "See, isn't it obvious? God made the universe, and here is proof- even scientists agree that things are just too complex to have happened by chance, and the initial conditions too delicate to be an accident."
OK, I believe in God. I think God is the Creator. So here is proof that He exists, and so... I quit my job and go to church? Well wait, maybe what these discoveries mean (as implied in the article) is that there are yet-undiscovered-laws that bridge these constants. That things really aren't just arbitrary-we just haven't discovered the key yet. Understanding these higher laws could unlock all sorts of un-dreamed of possibilities. Shouldn't we take a peek?
Is this the inherent anti-God-bias showing up? Why not just admit that God did it and leave it at that? Why go looking for an explanation that does not include God? The short response is that “God did it” is not enough of an answer. Of course God did it- but how? This is the real question from a scientific perspective. This is what gets left out of the discussions of Intelligent Design, by the way- there is no explanation of the mechanism for what we see. It is these mechanisms that science strives to explain, and these mechanisms that are either missing or only very provisional in Intelligent Design.
No doubt some scientists (just like people in every other kind of occupation) do have an anti-God bias- but does that mean that there isn't a Theory of Everything that will tie things together? Or maybe we are just not be smart enough to figure it out, or we may have come along too late in the universe to see what would have been obvious earlier on. And even if there is a theory, and we discover it, it will not disprove God- because what we see with our electron-tunneling microscopes and X-Ray observatories and super-colliders and mathematical theories is what God did. The physical earth, the universe, our biology - everything we see, hear and do is only possible because of what God did. So if there are 11 dimensions, if superstrings exist, if all life on earth traces its ancestry from a common single-celled organism to a chemical soup, to the bi-products of super-novas, back to the big bang and before that, to some unimaginable pre-history- well, that is what God did, and we will just have to deal with it.
This is the point when the Intelligent Design movement steps in with the comment, "See, isn't it obvious? God made the universe, and here is proof- even scientists agree that things are just too complex to have happened by chance, and the initial conditions too delicate to be an accident."
OK, I believe in God. I think God is the Creator. So here is proof that He exists, and so... I quit my job and go to church? Well wait, maybe what these discoveries mean (as implied in the article) is that there are yet-undiscovered-laws that bridge these constants. That things really aren't just arbitrary-we just haven't discovered the key yet. Understanding these higher laws could unlock all sorts of un-dreamed of possibilities. Shouldn't we take a peek?
Is this the inherent anti-God-bias showing up? Why not just admit that God did it and leave it at that? Why go looking for an explanation that does not include God? The short response is that “God did it” is not enough of an answer. Of course God did it- but how? This is the real question from a scientific perspective. This is what gets left out of the discussions of Intelligent Design, by the way- there is no explanation of the mechanism for what we see. It is these mechanisms that science strives to explain, and these mechanisms that are either missing or only very provisional in Intelligent Design.
No doubt some scientists (just like people in every other kind of occupation) do have an anti-God bias- but does that mean that there isn't a Theory of Everything that will tie things together? Or maybe we are just not be smart enough to figure it out, or we may have come along too late in the universe to see what would have been obvious earlier on. And even if there is a theory, and we discover it, it will not disprove God- because what we see with our electron-tunneling microscopes and X-Ray observatories and super-colliders and mathematical theories is what God did. The physical earth, the universe, our biology - everything we see, hear and do is only possible because of what God did. So if there are 11 dimensions, if superstrings exist, if all life on earth traces its ancestry from a common single-celled organism to a chemical soup, to the bi-products of super-novas, back to the big bang and before that, to some unimaginable pre-history- well, that is what God did, and we will just have to deal with it.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
What is the conflict between faith and science?
A straightforward reading of Genesis 1 leads many to the interpretation that the universe was created in 6, 24 hour days. The genealogies after Genesis 1 suggest a timeframe of a few thousand years between this creation and the birth of Jesus.
Until a few hundred years ago, there was no particular reason to question this chronology. In Europe from the 14th century onwards, people began applying logic and observation to the world around them in new ways, with astounding results. New attention began to be paid to odd formations in rocks that appeared to represent creatures that no longer lived on earth. New observations of the heavens brought into question the nature of the universe, and the notion that earth was at the center of creation.
As people began to form these various observations into coherent theories, a picture sometimes emerged that was at odds with a "literal" reading of the Bible. Most of us recognize that sometimes the Bible is making a statement of fact, and sometimes it is drawing an analogy, or using some other device to convey its meaning. At the same time, it is clear that some statements in the Bible are meant to be taken as communicating facts about the physical earth, the universe, and living creatures. Because the Bible claims to be the inspired word of God, it is critical that we engage the issues raised by scientific discoveries that appear to contradict the Bible. Why? Because our answer will determine how we interpret the Bible, and what we believe God says to us though it.
Not everyone sees faith and science in conflict. Most of the early scientists were men and women of faith. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that science was “Thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” It is the experience of many scientists and Christians that science and faith does not have to be in conflict. Strategies for dealing with faith and science have ranged from denying the conclusions of science (and attacking the motives of scientists), to dismissing anything in the Bible that is not supported by science.
This blog will explore some of the issues around the subject of science and faith, and provide a survey of the main approaches that Christians take towards science.
Until a few hundred years ago, there was no particular reason to question this chronology. In Europe from the 14th century onwards, people began applying logic and observation to the world around them in new ways, with astounding results. New attention began to be paid to odd formations in rocks that appeared to represent creatures that no longer lived on earth. New observations of the heavens brought into question the nature of the universe, and the notion that earth was at the center of creation.
As people began to form these various observations into coherent theories, a picture sometimes emerged that was at odds with a "literal" reading of the Bible. Most of us recognize that sometimes the Bible is making a statement of fact, and sometimes it is drawing an analogy, or using some other device to convey its meaning. At the same time, it is clear that some statements in the Bible are meant to be taken as communicating facts about the physical earth, the universe, and living creatures. Because the Bible claims to be the inspired word of God, it is critical that we engage the issues raised by scientific discoveries that appear to contradict the Bible. Why? Because our answer will determine how we interpret the Bible, and what we believe God says to us though it.
Not everyone sees faith and science in conflict. Most of the early scientists were men and women of faith. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that science was “Thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” It is the experience of many scientists and Christians that science and faith does not have to be in conflict. Strategies for dealing with faith and science have ranged from denying the conclusions of science (and attacking the motives of scientists), to dismissing anything in the Bible that is not supported by science.
This blog will explore some of the issues around the subject of science and faith, and provide a survey of the main approaches that Christians take towards science.
What is the Scientific Method?
The scientific method is a tool to discover certain kinds of things about the world around us. Consider a tree. The scientific method would not be of much help to us if we wanted to plot an adventure story involving the tree, or wanted to know if it was a good abode for fairies, but if we wanted to know what purpose the leaves served, or what kind of soil it grew best in, the scientific approach is one of the most powerful tools ever devised.
Consider this illustration:
This model looks at the process of proving an idea- how many observations, reinforcing one another and independently verified, fit together into systems and areas of knowledge- and as these various systems provide mutual feedback and correction, these shared insights are used to direct, refine and finally produce a way of explaining some aspect of the world (a theory).
The diagram is labeled "idealized" because science is not really so cut and dry. For example, as often as not, a scientist is thinking about a particular kind of problem when she starts the cycle. Few, if any, people notice some random fact and start framing an experiment. More often, people are thinking about a particular kind of problem, and use this approach to figure out what is going on. What is important here is that instead of jumping to the conclusion, the person doing the experiment is asking good questions, performing tests to eliminate possible alternative explanations, and (hopefully?) listening to the data. This is not so much a procedure as a mindset.
Sometimes, we think we are closing in on an answer, and then everything is changed by new discoveries- for example, Newton's framework of physics was replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity- though keep in mind that Newton's laws still work- just not in as many instances as Einstein's - so this is really a case of a partial understanding being replaced by a more encompassing one.
And a few terms:
A fact is an observation that can be independently established by different observers.
A hypothesis is an explanation that accounts for observed facts. Click here for more.
A theory is hypothesis that fits all the observed facts. It has been tested by enough people over a long enough time to be generally accepted as true.
Given the above, a theory can never "graduate" to the status of a fact because they are not the same thing. Facts are the things explained by the theory. You can have so much confidence in a theory that it is not reasonable to deny the explanation. If facts are discovered that cannot be explained by the theory, then the theory is false, and has to be modified, or replaced by a theory that more accurately explains the facts. This is one reason why we are always reading about new discoveries that call some theory into question-it is the nature of science that we "know in part," and we revise our understanding as we go. This is actually a good thing, if it results in a more accurate understanding of our world.
There is no Single "Scientific Method"
"No single criterion yet formulated has succeeded in defining science completely, leading to two possible interpretations. Either we haven't found the all-sufficient definition yet, or it doesn't exist. The latter seems to be much more likely. Thus it is wrong to speak of the "Scientific Method". Rather, there is a constellation of scientific methods. The most robust definitions - those of widest applicability, most immune to abuse and capable of correcting errors - revolve around replication of results by independent observers and seeking ways to falsify theories."
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/badmodl.htm
Consider this illustration:
This model looks at the process of proving an idea- how many observations, reinforcing one another and independently verified, fit together into systems and areas of knowledge- and as these various systems provide mutual feedback and correction, these shared insights are used to direct, refine and finally produce a way of explaining some aspect of the world (a theory).
The diagram is labeled "idealized" because science is not really so cut and dry. For example, as often as not, a scientist is thinking about a particular kind of problem when she starts the cycle. Few, if any, people notice some random fact and start framing an experiment. More often, people are thinking about a particular kind of problem, and use this approach to figure out what is going on. What is important here is that instead of jumping to the conclusion, the person doing the experiment is asking good questions, performing tests to eliminate possible alternative explanations, and (hopefully?) listening to the data. This is not so much a procedure as a mindset.
Sometimes, we think we are closing in on an answer, and then everything is changed by new discoveries- for example, Newton's framework of physics was replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity- though keep in mind that Newton's laws still work- just not in as many instances as Einstein's - so this is really a case of a partial understanding being replaced by a more encompassing one.
And a few terms:
A fact is an observation that can be independently established by different observers.
A hypothesis is an explanation that accounts for observed facts. Click here for more.
A theory is hypothesis that fits all the observed facts. It has been tested by enough people over a long enough time to be generally accepted as true.
Given the above, a theory can never "graduate" to the status of a fact because they are not the same thing. Facts are the things explained by the theory. You can have so much confidence in a theory that it is not reasonable to deny the explanation. If facts are discovered that cannot be explained by the theory, then the theory is false, and has to be modified, or replaced by a theory that more accurately explains the facts. This is one reason why we are always reading about new discoveries that call some theory into question-it is the nature of science that we "know in part," and we revise our understanding as we go. This is actually a good thing, if it results in a more accurate understanding of our world.
There is no Single "Scientific Method"
"No single criterion yet formulated has succeeded in defining science completely, leading to two possible interpretations. Either we haven't found the all-sufficient definition yet, or it doesn't exist. The latter seems to be much more likely. Thus it is wrong to speak of the "Scientific Method". Rather, there is a constellation of scientific methods. The most robust definitions - those of widest applicability, most immune to abuse and capable of correcting errors - revolve around replication of results by independent observers and seeking ways to falsify theories."
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/badmodl.htm
Does Science Discover Truth?
Some people argue that the assumptions behind science blind scientists to reality. By searching for naturalistic answers, scientists refuse to consider supernatural explanations. As a result (some would say), by definition, scientists are unable to "discover" facts that would support faith. They might go on to say that the entire educational establishment, hostile to faith, rejects and ridicules any attempt to bring faith into science, and even evidence that might support, for instance, a young age for the earth is ignored. This perception is strengthened by a number of scientists who are hostile to religion, and by a definition of science that specifically excludes the consideration of super-natural explanations.
On the other hand, the purpose of science is to uncover the mechanics of how things work-in specific. Ultimate answers like "God made it" does not add much to our understanding of blood clotting, for example (though it might enlarge our sense of awe). I think that part of the problem is that we have confused science with Truth, and think that if there is not a scientific answer, there is no answer to be found. Some scientists do hold that there is nothing but matter, and that everything that happens is only the interplay physical systems- but they are not speaking as scientists when they make these kinds of statements; they have become philosophers. Scientists can hold opinions about the nature of ultimate reality, just like theologians can hold opinions about the quantum mechanics- but in each case, they run the risk of arguing outside of their areas of expertise.
How God chooses to manifest in our lives, and how God interacts with the physical universe may not be discoverable, except through the eyes of faith. Seeking to validate our faith through science may be expecting too much of the discipline. This is not to say that faith is not grounded in the physical world, but that God's creation is so well made that it does not require "propping up" to function, and has no "holes in the fence" through which we can peek to see the hand of God at work.
Others suggest that there is no reality to discover. How we experience the world is created by consensus (or our preconceptions). If we had a different consensus, we would have different laws of physics. From this perspective, scientists document our shared habits of belief more than discover basic principles about the universe. Interestingly, this is a difficult charge to defend against, because we have little choice other than to act as if the world we find ourselves in is real (just try not paying your bills!). In any event, this is not a Christian objection to science, as Christians do believe that God (and not us) made the world.
All people bring their assumptions with them to any human endeavor. As well, reality is larger and more subtle than any one of us experience. All the same, I believe that something unusually powerful is indeed uncovered by scientists. What is being uncovered is nothing less than what God has done in the universe. Of course, this work is being done by people, with all sorts of motives, prejudices, agendas, and different levels of skill, experience, intellect... which is why we have the practice of peer review and reproducible experiments, and why controversial ideas take some time to be accepted.
As poor a system as this might be, I cannot imagine that making science a matter of popular opinion makes much sense either. It is not only Christians that have a bone to pick with science. Some Eastern religions question the very notion that there is a reality to discover. Certain groups deny that various historical events occurred; different religions have trouble with even fairly recent anthropology. Non-specialists have trouble with the math that underpins much of modern physics, and the chemistry & biology behind medicine. Given this, does it make sense to determine scientific fact by popular vote? Based their popularity, should we add astrology and numerology to our science curriculum?
Discontinuity or Progressive Change?
One of the things that is not always obvious when we read about new discoveries is that these new discoveries are most often refinements or extensions to explanations of the world around us. For example, recently a scientist has reported that he believes he has demonstrated that the speed of light is not constant. But this actually represents progress in understanding the universe- General Relativity would still be useful and accurate (Just as Newtonian physics is still used, though it has been superseded by General Relativity). So we may be "honing in" on the truth, rather than starting all over again. This matters because, if science is discovering random facts, and our theories veer from one explanation to another, it would be reasonable to assume that "anything is possible," and a theory that is proved wrong today could be proved right tomorrow. What seems more likely is that we do not discard what has been proved right so far, but discover deeper or more fundamental theories that account for more of what we see in the world.
In Summary:
"Science is not merely a collection of facts, concepts, and useful ideas about nature, or even the systematic investigation of nature, although both are common definitions of science. Science is a method of investigating nature--a way of knowing about nature--that discovers reliable knowledge about it."
http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/sciencemethod.html
On the other hand, the purpose of science is to uncover the mechanics of how things work-in specific. Ultimate answers like "God made it" does not add much to our understanding of blood clotting, for example (though it might enlarge our sense of awe). I think that part of the problem is that we have confused science with Truth, and think that if there is not a scientific answer, there is no answer to be found. Some scientists do hold that there is nothing but matter, and that everything that happens is only the interplay physical systems- but they are not speaking as scientists when they make these kinds of statements; they have become philosophers. Scientists can hold opinions about the nature of ultimate reality, just like theologians can hold opinions about the quantum mechanics- but in each case, they run the risk of arguing outside of their areas of expertise.
How God chooses to manifest in our lives, and how God interacts with the physical universe may not be discoverable, except through the eyes of faith. Seeking to validate our faith through science may be expecting too much of the discipline. This is not to say that faith is not grounded in the physical world, but that God's creation is so well made that it does not require "propping up" to function, and has no "holes in the fence" through which we can peek to see the hand of God at work.
Others suggest that there is no reality to discover. How we experience the world is created by consensus (or our preconceptions). If we had a different consensus, we would have different laws of physics. From this perspective, scientists document our shared habits of belief more than discover basic principles about the universe. Interestingly, this is a difficult charge to defend against, because we have little choice other than to act as if the world we find ourselves in is real (just try not paying your bills!). In any event, this is not a Christian objection to science, as Christians do believe that God (and not us) made the world.
All people bring their assumptions with them to any human endeavor. As well, reality is larger and more subtle than any one of us experience. All the same, I believe that something unusually powerful is indeed uncovered by scientists. What is being uncovered is nothing less than what God has done in the universe. Of course, this work is being done by people, with all sorts of motives, prejudices, agendas, and different levels of skill, experience, intellect... which is why we have the practice of peer review and reproducible experiments, and why controversial ideas take some time to be accepted.
As poor a system as this might be, I cannot imagine that making science a matter of popular opinion makes much sense either. It is not only Christians that have a bone to pick with science. Some Eastern religions question the very notion that there is a reality to discover. Certain groups deny that various historical events occurred; different religions have trouble with even fairly recent anthropology. Non-specialists have trouble with the math that underpins much of modern physics, and the chemistry & biology behind medicine. Given this, does it make sense to determine scientific fact by popular vote? Based their popularity, should we add astrology and numerology to our science curriculum?
Discontinuity or Progressive Change?
One of the things that is not always obvious when we read about new discoveries is that these new discoveries are most often refinements or extensions to explanations of the world around us. For example, recently a scientist has reported that he believes he has demonstrated that the speed of light is not constant. But this actually represents progress in understanding the universe- General Relativity would still be useful and accurate (Just as Newtonian physics is still used, though it has been superseded by General Relativity). So we may be "honing in" on the truth, rather than starting all over again. This matters because, if science is discovering random facts, and our theories veer from one explanation to another, it would be reasonable to assume that "anything is possible," and a theory that is proved wrong today could be proved right tomorrow. What seems more likely is that we do not discard what has been proved right so far, but discover deeper or more fundamental theories that account for more of what we see in the world.
In Summary:
"Science is not merely a collection of facts, concepts, and useful ideas about nature, or even the systematic investigation of nature, although both are common definitions of science. Science is a method of investigating nature--a way of knowing about nature--that discovers reliable knowledge about it."
http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/sciencemethod.html
How Do Christians Deal with the Conflict?
Of course, there are a wide range of responses. They tend to fall into four camps (though as was pointed out in class, there can be quite a lot of shading between these positions; they aren't quite as rigid as this may make it seem):
1. Young Earth Creationism - The world is less than 10,000 years old, just as a literal reading of the Bible indicates. Any science that suggests otherwise is wrong. This position is driven as much by an approach to biblical interpretation as it is with an objection to the discoveries of science. That is, the age of the earth only matters because it seems to contradict the Bible. Another way to put this is that there are few, if any scientists who argue for a "Young Earth" who are also not religious.
Some Links (Check out the home pages for more info)
Institute for Creation Research
Creation Research
2. Old Earth Creationism - The "days" in Genesis really mean ages or periods of time, and while science is right about the earth being old, it was created in stages as described in Genesis, and species were created by God as they appear today. This approach is more easily reconciled with some of the discoveries of science, and some proponents hold that God worked through evolution to bring Adam and Eve into existence. Many Old Earth Creationists are comfortable with the Intelligent Design movement, and simply replace the unknown "Intelligent Designer" of the ID movement with God (see the NewCreationism link, below).
Some Useful Links:
Reasons
New Creationism
3. Intelligent Design - this approach holds that science has it more-or-less right in terms of the age of the universe, the development of galaxies, suns and planets, the evolutionary nature of life- but ID rejects the "all by chance" implication of evolution. The ID position holds that it is obvious from the complexity of life that it had to have been designed. ID does not say who the designer is (and holds that science cannot know the identity of the designer), just that careful science reveals that life requires a designer- it could not have happened by accident. As a side note, the leading proponents of ID are careful to not make an association between ID and a religion, because then it could not be taught in public schools as an alternative theory to evolution. As such, ID is offered as a correction to Darwinism, more than a Biblical response to science.
Some ID Sites:
Discovery Institute
Access Research Network
4. Theistic Evolution- God is the Creator, and designed all of creation. However, He did not need to intervene at any particular stage to bring the world we see today about. "Big Bang" cosmology and evolution describes the "How" of creation. So Theistic Evolution shares the notion of God as the Creator with the Young and Old Earth Creationists, and the idea of an Intelligent Designer with the ID movement (though Theistic Evolution explicitly identifies the God of the Bible as the designer, unike the ID movement).
Three Supporters of this Position:
Dr. Kenneth Miller
Christian and Professor of Biology at Brown University
Finding Darwin's God
Dr. Denis Lamoureux,
Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta
Home Page
Epic Battle
Overview on Dr. Lamoureux
Dr. Howard van Till
Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College
Second and Third Articles on this Page
And Speaking for the State of Science
One thing you will discover (if you have not already) is that the various creationist positions can be very critical about science, scientists and even other creationist positions. Here are a few sites that talk about science.
Science & Theology News
Talk.Origins FAQ About Evolution
This is quite a lot of information, and these just provide overviews of the subject! I encourage you to work through the various viewpoints, and integrate your view of science into your broader experience of faith and interaction with the world.
I hope you are coming to see that science is an approach to the world around us. As such, it is fair to question the assumptions scientists start with. All of us tend to see what we expect to see- this does not change just because we are "doing science" (or religion, for that matter). The scientific perspective that transformed our culture and worldview was at first radical and skeptical. But like most things human, science as an institution has too often become dogmatic and inflexible. But just like institutional failures of the church do not invalidate Christianity, neither do the failures of scientists or institutions invalidate the practice of science (though they might result in bad science).
My confidence is that the God of Truth is not threatened by hard questions and in-depth exploration of the world around us. It may be difficult, even unsettling to come to understand that the world is different than we thought; but men and women of faith have gone there before us, and we can learn from their experience.
1. Young Earth Creationism - The world is less than 10,000 years old, just as a literal reading of the Bible indicates. Any science that suggests otherwise is wrong. This position is driven as much by an approach to biblical interpretation as it is with an objection to the discoveries of science. That is, the age of the earth only matters because it seems to contradict the Bible. Another way to put this is that there are few, if any scientists who argue for a "Young Earth" who are also not religious.
Some Links (Check out the home pages for more info)
Institute for Creation Research
Creation Research
2. Old Earth Creationism - The "days" in Genesis really mean ages or periods of time, and while science is right about the earth being old, it was created in stages as described in Genesis, and species were created by God as they appear today. This approach is more easily reconciled with some of the discoveries of science, and some proponents hold that God worked through evolution to bring Adam and Eve into existence. Many Old Earth Creationists are comfortable with the Intelligent Design movement, and simply replace the unknown "Intelligent Designer" of the ID movement with God (see the NewCreationism link, below).
Some Useful Links:
Reasons
New Creationism
3. Intelligent Design - this approach holds that science has it more-or-less right in terms of the age of the universe, the development of galaxies, suns and planets, the evolutionary nature of life- but ID rejects the "all by chance" implication of evolution. The ID position holds that it is obvious from the complexity of life that it had to have been designed. ID does not say who the designer is (and holds that science cannot know the identity of the designer), just that careful science reveals that life requires a designer- it could not have happened by accident. As a side note, the leading proponents of ID are careful to not make an association between ID and a religion, because then it could not be taught in public schools as an alternative theory to evolution. As such, ID is offered as a correction to Darwinism, more than a Biblical response to science.
Some ID Sites:
Discovery Institute
Access Research Network
4. Theistic Evolution- God is the Creator, and designed all of creation. However, He did not need to intervene at any particular stage to bring the world we see today about. "Big Bang" cosmology and evolution describes the "How" of creation. So Theistic Evolution shares the notion of God as the Creator with the Young and Old Earth Creationists, and the idea of an Intelligent Designer with the ID movement (though Theistic Evolution explicitly identifies the God of the Bible as the designer, unike the ID movement).
Three Supporters of this Position:
Dr. Kenneth Miller
Christian and Professor of Biology at Brown University
Finding Darwin's God
Dr. Denis Lamoureux,
Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta
Home Page
Epic Battle
Overview on Dr. Lamoureux
Dr. Howard van Till
Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College
Second and Third Articles on this Page
And Speaking for the State of Science
One thing you will discover (if you have not already) is that the various creationist positions can be very critical about science, scientists and even other creationist positions. Here are a few sites that talk about science.
Science & Theology News
Talk.Origins FAQ About Evolution
This is quite a lot of information, and these just provide overviews of the subject! I encourage you to work through the various viewpoints, and integrate your view of science into your broader experience of faith and interaction with the world.
I hope you are coming to see that science is an approach to the world around us. As such, it is fair to question the assumptions scientists start with. All of us tend to see what we expect to see- this does not change just because we are "doing science" (or religion, for that matter). The scientific perspective that transformed our culture and worldview was at first radical and skeptical. But like most things human, science as an institution has too often become dogmatic and inflexible. But just like institutional failures of the church do not invalidate Christianity, neither do the failures of scientists or institutions invalidate the practice of science (though they might result in bad science).
My confidence is that the God of Truth is not threatened by hard questions and in-depth exploration of the world around us. It may be difficult, even unsettling to come to understand that the world is different than we thought; but men and women of faith have gone there before us, and we can learn from their experience.
How Do We Decide?
Science can be a challenge to faith, because it suggests that there is an avenue to certainty that speaks more authoritatively than revelation. God has access to information we don’t; in the Bible, He reveals this information to us. At the same time, He speaks to us from a particular time and culture, and He makes use of the ordinary things of day-to-day life to make His points. When He speaks of things in the natural world (like the sun rising), is He using things "commonly accepted" as true at the time of revelation, or is He attempting to teach things about the world (cosmology, geography, biology)? A scientific study of the world suggests the former - God is appealing to our sense of 'the way things are" to teach spiritual truth, not trying to educate people in what we would now call the physical sciences.
This appeal to "the way things are" is found throughout scripture. Almost all the books of the Bible appeal to our knowledge of the world we live in, as they attempt to explain spiritual truths.
This is normally not much of a problem- until what the Bible says about the world differs from our experience- then we have to make a decision: do we take the Bible literally, or do we believe the product of our observation and reason, and interpret the Bible as speaking figuratively?
Just as we understand spiritual truths by analogy with day-to-day experience, so our spiritual experience helps us see our daily life with new eyes. Oscar Cullmann described this experience as a circle:
Now, we have built up certainties about our world that make it very hard to read the entire Bible as "literally true."
When you read this passage from Isaiah 55:12*
12 You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
Most of us, based on our experience that mountains and hills do not sing, and trees do not clap, would identify this passage as poetry, and figurative (as opposed to literal).
Unlike the people who heard Isaiah for the first time, who would probably have agreed with us, the original hearers of Genesis 1 may well have taken the chapter at face value. Click here to visit a page that provides a picture of how biblical Hebrews may have viewed their world.
Now that our experience of the world is different (we believe in galaxies and billions of light-years of distance, and a round earth revolving the sun), is it fair that we re-interpret Genesis 1 more in line with how we read Isaiah 55:12? That is, should we concentrate on the spiritual truth God is trying to teach us, and not take the Bible as our science textbook?
Some suggest that we do just that; others say that this approach threatens the very foundations of the gospel. Central to my own faith is that God is the God of Truth; He has nothing to fear from science, because he made everything that scientists study.
This is not an area where Christians agree. Some, especially the Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists, view the Bible as containing information about the age and makeup of the earth that is accurate. Science is either wrong or misleading when it contradicts the Bible. Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution might teach that in places where the Bible communicates a non-scientific perspective, it is speaking to a pre-scientific culture in words and images that made sense to them (much as we still speak of the "sun rising" when we know it is actually the world that turns).
What do you do? I believe that men and women of genuine faith study the facts, pray and read the Bible, and do the best they can. This is made difficult by the technical nature of the arguments. Few people can reach informed conclusions about such esoteric subjects as radio-carbon dating or the red-shift of light from distant galaxies. We are left to trust individuals; then it appears that trustworthy individuals disagree. My own approach is to believe that good ideas will be proven out. The germ theory of disease, the notion that fossils were actually mineralized creatures from the distant past, the formation of mountains, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics - any many, many more ideas were controversial in their time, rejected by the scientific establishment, and gradually grew to be accepted. On the other hand, the history of science is littered with special pleading, meant to support some scriptural interpretation that has not withstood the test of time.
Under the circumstances, Paul's words to the Ephesians* apply:
4:1 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
But, beyond that, how do you determine what you believe? One approach is to read through the various viewpoints (see above), and prayerfully consider the options.
Here are some links to thinkers on the subject that I have found helpful. And this is a link to a site that takes seriously the religious issues raised by this line of questioning.
It takes time, it can be a bit frustrating trying to sort out the claims and counter-claims, but it is part of the process of coming to grips with the nature of the world we live in, the nature of the Bible, and the relationship that God wants to have with us. You have the rest of your life to wrestle with these questions- my prayer is that God will lead you to a good place!
* New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan
This appeal to "the way things are" is found throughout scripture. Almost all the books of the Bible appeal to our knowledge of the world we live in, as they attempt to explain spiritual truths.
This is normally not much of a problem- until what the Bible says about the world differs from our experience- then we have to make a decision: do we take the Bible literally, or do we believe the product of our observation and reason, and interpret the Bible as speaking figuratively?
Just as we understand spiritual truths by analogy with day-to-day experience, so our spiritual experience helps us see our daily life with new eyes. Oscar Cullmann described this experience as a circle:
Now, we have built up certainties about our world that make it very hard to read the entire Bible as "literally true."
When you read this passage from Isaiah 55:12*
12 You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
Most of us, based on our experience that mountains and hills do not sing, and trees do not clap, would identify this passage as poetry, and figurative (as opposed to literal).
Unlike the people who heard Isaiah for the first time, who would probably have agreed with us, the original hearers of Genesis 1 may well have taken the chapter at face value. Click here to visit a page that provides a picture of how biblical Hebrews may have viewed their world.
Now that our experience of the world is different (we believe in galaxies and billions of light-years of distance, and a round earth revolving the sun), is it fair that we re-interpret Genesis 1 more in line with how we read Isaiah 55:12? That is, should we concentrate on the spiritual truth God is trying to teach us, and not take the Bible as our science textbook?
Some suggest that we do just that; others say that this approach threatens the very foundations of the gospel. Central to my own faith is that God is the God of Truth; He has nothing to fear from science, because he made everything that scientists study.
This is not an area where Christians agree. Some, especially the Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists, view the Bible as containing information about the age and makeup of the earth that is accurate. Science is either wrong or misleading when it contradicts the Bible. Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution might teach that in places where the Bible communicates a non-scientific perspective, it is speaking to a pre-scientific culture in words and images that made sense to them (much as we still speak of the "sun rising" when we know it is actually the world that turns).
What do you do? I believe that men and women of genuine faith study the facts, pray and read the Bible, and do the best they can. This is made difficult by the technical nature of the arguments. Few people can reach informed conclusions about such esoteric subjects as radio-carbon dating or the red-shift of light from distant galaxies. We are left to trust individuals; then it appears that trustworthy individuals disagree. My own approach is to believe that good ideas will be proven out. The germ theory of disease, the notion that fossils were actually mineralized creatures from the distant past, the formation of mountains, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics - any many, many more ideas were controversial in their time, rejected by the scientific establishment, and gradually grew to be accepted. On the other hand, the history of science is littered with special pleading, meant to support some scriptural interpretation that has not withstood the test of time.
Under the circumstances, Paul's words to the Ephesians* apply:
4:1 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
But, beyond that, how do you determine what you believe? One approach is to read through the various viewpoints (see above), and prayerfully consider the options.
Here are some links to thinkers on the subject that I have found helpful. And this is a link to a site that takes seriously the religious issues raised by this line of questioning.
It takes time, it can be a bit frustrating trying to sort out the claims and counter-claims, but it is part of the process of coming to grips with the nature of the world we live in, the nature of the Bible, and the relationship that God wants to have with us. You have the rest of your life to wrestle with these questions- my prayer is that God will lead you to a good place!
* New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
