One of the fundamental questions we have to answer when we think about faith and science is the relationship between the natural world and revelation. Gnosticism is the belief that the "real truth" about ourselves and the world is hidden, and available only to those with special knowledge (gnosis). One the other hand, the Christian faith has been "out in the open." The gospel is plain, freely spoken, and God is the creator and animator of the world - He made it, and called it good.
When we discover things about the world that seem to be at odds with what the bible teaches, we have two options - we can decide that the Christian faith is really a kind of Gnostic religion (the world looks old, but we know it is really not), or we can respectfully ask if we have been reading the bible right. The difficulty is that if we cannot trust what we discover about the world, we have no way of knowing if our faith is true, either.
How was the revelation you base your faith on received? Well, it is based on the bible, you might say - the word of God. On what basis can you trust it, if you cannot have faith in how the world works? For example, think about your ideas as regards written words holding their shape and meaning over time. On what basis do you know that what was written in the 1st and 2nd century is what is displayed on those manuscripts now? Is it possible that the gospel writers wrote one set of words, but over time they drifted around to form different words altogether?
Nonsense, you think. Of course the words haven't morphed! Ink and parchment make a chemical bond... oh, that's right - if I can't be certain about the natural world, I am adrift when it comes to revelation as well. Science does discover true things about the world.
Now what do we do about the age of the earth? Well, some people dismiss uniformatarianism - the belief that the world always worked the way it does now. That way is madness. And has been demonstrated to be wrong. So some people take another approach and attack science - call it wrong, and provisional, and in the hands of godless atheists. This is also wrong - and very shortsighted. The other option, supported by the bible, is to view the world as telling us accurate things about God. If the world is old (and it is),then we have to deal with this, and in humility, let this fact help us interpret our bible - instead of insisting that God can't do this or mean that.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
One of the Real Tragedies of Creation Science
Just been reading about drug resistant bacteria. We are living in a time when we face a host of technological problems - from lack of clean water to environmental degradation, epidemic disease, famine, energy shortages, antibiotic resistance, pandemics - just to name a few.
The result of these problems will be mass suffering on a scale we have never seen before, unless technological solutions can be found. This is not the time to be denying foundational truths of science in order to support a literal translation of the bible. Not only is it a colossal waste of time for so many people to spend so much time denying the obvious - it also punishes people who pursue science careers, and dissuades people who should be entering the fray.
Young Earth Creationism is not true, and all the energy being spent in debating it is diverting time and energy from solving critical problems. What is worse, by branding scientists as liars who are perpetrating fraud with their "godless theories," we are hampering the work of science just when we need it the most.
The result of these problems will be mass suffering on a scale we have never seen before, unless technological solutions can be found. This is not the time to be denying foundational truths of science in order to support a literal translation of the bible. Not only is it a colossal waste of time for so many people to spend so much time denying the obvious - it also punishes people who pursue science careers, and dissuades people who should be entering the fray.
Young Earth Creationism is not true, and all the energy being spent in debating it is diverting time and energy from solving critical problems. What is worse, by branding scientists as liars who are perpetrating fraud with their "godless theories," we are hampering the work of science just when we need it the most.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
So What is Up With Evolution?
For most Christians who are concerned about the subject, evolution is troublesome because it contradicts the "special creation" status of humans, as well as reinforcing the inaccuracy of claiming an approximately 6 to 10 thousand year-old earth. For ID proponents like Behe, who seems to accept that evolution does in fact work as described, the complaint is that evolutionary processes, in themselves, are insufficient to account for certain (highly complex) steps. Note there is nothing in his complaint about the unguided nature of evolution. ID is "religiously agnostic," while the YEC movement (which provides most of ID's support) is up in arms at the (inaccurate) portrayal of evolution as being a purposeless and unguided process.
As well, the theory of evolution DOES NOT claim that evolution is purposeless and unguided (in a "ultimate" sense). True, this is what YEC-ers say about evolutionary theory, because it suits their purpose. Science has no comment on any kind of ultimate or spiritual purpose or lack thereof for evolution. Science has no tools to detect and comment on the supernatural. Science limits itself to a description of what happens, and teaches that several things guide evolution, including the concept of reproductive advantage. It is true that science has found no reason to believe that the "purpose" of evolution is the human race, but again, this is not a refutation of purpose, just a description of the fact that science does not (cannot, should not be made to try to) detect God.
Further, science does not stop religion from proclaiming that "God did it." Nor does it deny that God did it. Science proper has nothing to say about God at all, for or against - because science is about the properties of the natural world.
So why is there a problem? Because science does demonstrate that the earth is billions of years old, and that all life came from common ancestors. This conflicts with YEC religious belief. This is the only sticking point. Note that when there is no religious conflict, YEC proponents are happy for science to produce the advances that we have all come to depend on (electricity, cell phones, computers, increased crop yields, medicine, ...).
The world view that produced these advances is the scientific one. The discoveries that made these advances possible came because we did not have to settle for "it is too complex" or "God did it."
As well, the theory of evolution DOES NOT claim that evolution is purposeless and unguided (in a "ultimate" sense). True, this is what YEC-ers say about evolutionary theory, because it suits their purpose. Science has no comment on any kind of ultimate or spiritual purpose or lack thereof for evolution. Science has no tools to detect and comment on the supernatural. Science limits itself to a description of what happens, and teaches that several things guide evolution, including the concept of reproductive advantage. It is true that science has found no reason to believe that the "purpose" of evolution is the human race, but again, this is not a refutation of purpose, just a description of the fact that science does not (cannot, should not be made to try to) detect God.
Further, science does not stop religion from proclaiming that "God did it." Nor does it deny that God did it. Science proper has nothing to say about God at all, for or against - because science is about the properties of the natural world.
So why is there a problem? Because science does demonstrate that the earth is billions of years old, and that all life came from common ancestors. This conflicts with YEC religious belief. This is the only sticking point. Note that when there is no religious conflict, YEC proponents are happy for science to produce the advances that we have all come to depend on (electricity, cell phones, computers, increased crop yields, medicine, ...).
The world view that produced these advances is the scientific one. The discoveries that made these advances possible came because we did not have to settle for "it is too complex" or "God did it."
Thursday, December 15, 2005
What does it mean to study Mother Theresa Scientifically?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
