The past few hundred years has witnessed a sea-change in the way we think about the world. Science, not theology is accepted as the final arbiter on everything from the power of prayer to the age of the earth. This would have been unthinkable to the vast majority of folks even 300 years ago. True, the YEC camp has to fall back on an alternative science to justify their positions - but the point is, they don't just say "it was a miracle" and leave it at that - no, they go to amazing lengths to argue that THEY have the 'true science" and the more accurate view of the world. In other words, they grant the primacy of science when it comes to the natural world.
Most religions record interactions between gods and people. Gods are revealed to change history, perform miracles and dwell in the heavens (or some such place) - which were viewed not as extra-dimensional or outside of space and time, but as PART of the natural order - albeit generally inaccessible. All the same, Orpheus went into Hades, and John had visions of heaven - which are portrayed as actual, physical places.
The point is, we are transitioning from a worldview in which God built the universe, populated it, and physically inhabits it, to a vague notion of God as Spirit, but no longer actually living in the same physical universe with us. Yes, we discuss God as being present in Spirit with us - but the notion that God, who is part of the Universe, extends that presence via his Spirit is quite different than the notion that God is somehow outside space and time, with no natural properties at all, yet somehow interacts with us via spirit, which itself has no natural properties at all - but still has the power to impact us in undetectable (that is, purely subjective) ways via an unknowable mechanism.
Do we need to update our theology (in the classic sense of knowledge about God) to take into account what we now know about the universe?
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Monday, April 17, 2006
4 Thoughts About the Faith / Science Dialouge
First, the religious discussions (here, and in the broader cultural context) have been hijacked by a group who, while claiming to represent "authentic" Christianity, actually represent a narrow and narrow-minded subset of Christian faith and practice. As has been noted before, the church (in space and time) has had a variety of approaches to Genesis 1 - and it is neither accurate nor honest to dismiss them in favor of one group's vociferous insistence that they alone know the truth. Geisler's "either/or" logic is an attempt to capture the entire "biblical" faith perspective for literalism. Though it is fine for literalists to think they are right, the plain truth is that folks we will meet in heaven, folks who have defended and helped define what we know as historic Christianity, helped define the very contents of the Bible, the historic creeds (and even the "founding fathers" of fundamentalism) held beliefs that differ from this modern group of literalists.
Second. There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is old and that that the we evolved from a common ancestor. These facts have to be taken into account when we interpret scripture, in the same way that we use what we know about the world when we read (for example) Isaiah 55:12:
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.
We recognize that this is poetic, because we know trees do not have hands. Likewise, we know that Genesis 1 does not refer to 6, 24 hour days, because we have learned that the earth is billions of years old, and was not created in the order listed. An alien might think, reading Isaiah, that trees "obviously" had hands, and could clap. Only knowledge about life on earth could set it straight. Likewise, our knowledge about the age of the earth lets us know that Genesis is meant as poetry, not science (not false – Isaiah 55 is true, just not literal, as is Genesis 1).
Third. What is driving the "teach the controversy" movement is an a prior commitment to what is and is not "literal" in the bible. The fear seems to be that if some parts of the bible are not taken literally, then no part will be. This is not true, as demonstrated by the fact that Christians have survived the demise of the divine rights of kings to rule, and the notion that the earth was at the center of the universe. Both were thought to be undoubtedly true, based on a literal reading of the Bible, but somehow Christians have survived the switch in thinking. Likewise, Christians can survive this change in thinking as well.
Fourth. It is of no value to your relationship with God to believe things that are not true. All the time people spend on defending the obvious falsehoods presented by young earth creationism would be much better spent dealing with the world the way it really is, and seeking to address genuine problems that we face (take your pick, justice, morality, human suffering, coming ecological catastrophes).
Second. There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is old and that that the we evolved from a common ancestor. These facts have to be taken into account when we interpret scripture, in the same way that we use what we know about the world when we read (for example) Isaiah 55:12:
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.
We recognize that this is poetic, because we know trees do not have hands. Likewise, we know that Genesis 1 does not refer to 6, 24 hour days, because we have learned that the earth is billions of years old, and was not created in the order listed. An alien might think, reading Isaiah, that trees "obviously" had hands, and could clap. Only knowledge about life on earth could set it straight. Likewise, our knowledge about the age of the earth lets us know that Genesis is meant as poetry, not science (not false – Isaiah 55 is true, just not literal, as is Genesis 1).
Third. What is driving the "teach the controversy" movement is an a prior commitment to what is and is not "literal" in the bible. The fear seems to be that if some parts of the bible are not taken literally, then no part will be. This is not true, as demonstrated by the fact that Christians have survived the demise of the divine rights of kings to rule, and the notion that the earth was at the center of the universe. Both were thought to be undoubtedly true, based on a literal reading of the Bible, but somehow Christians have survived the switch in thinking. Likewise, Christians can survive this change in thinking as well.
Fourth. It is of no value to your relationship with God to believe things that are not true. All the time people spend on defending the obvious falsehoods presented by young earth creationism would be much better spent dealing with the world the way it really is, and seeking to address genuine problems that we face (take your pick, justice, morality, human suffering, coming ecological catastrophes).
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Creationism Doesn't Belong in the Science Classroom
There is a measurable, meaningful difference between evolution and creationism. This difference justifies excluding creationism (in any of its wedge or Trojan horse variations) from being inserted into the public school science classroom.
Evolution is a mainstay of scientific thought. 300,000+ articles have been published in science journals keyed to the word evolution in the last 15 years, in comparison to a handful of ID review articles (containing no research). Evolution is a well-established, accepted theory, used every day by scientists all over the world. Contrast folks who graduate with a geology degree from a creationist college, who have to use old earth models of geology to find oil, and who admit that they are not able to use anything they learned at school, as it does not correspond with reality.
Compare the success of evolution in explaining the world with creationism, which offers no coherent theory, no reseach program, no facts - only apologetics, criticism of evolution, and a belief that it must be true because that is the way creationists read the bible. These are not competing ideas that deserve equal time. One explains the world around us, the other confounds our understanding by telling us that the clear facts we observe in nature are wrong.
All the pressure to insert "critical analysis" of evolution into public school classrooms comes from creationism camps, and parents & politicians who have been told by their religious leaders that this is an important issue. Especially telling is that calls for critical analysis in science are limited strictly to those items that contradict YEC claims (with the exception of geocentrism - I guess they have conceded on that one). What about controversies in areas that the Bible does not address? They aren't interested.
As a result, there is no scientific or educational value to teaching a creationism perspective on scientific controversy, since it is strictly an apologetics tool, intended to justify YEC theology.
What is worse, there is no legal or logical reason to limit the discussion to creationist talking points - so we are opening the door to astrology (as ID proponent Behe noted in the Dover trial) and any other form of religious belief being certified as science, as long as there are enough members of the local or state school board to insert it into the curriculum. This will result in children getting the clear message that all truth (even about the natural world) is a mater of personal conviction, based not on evidence, but on what religious leaders say must be true. This is a giant step back in knowledge, and presages a return to superstition, ignorance and fear as we lose our grasp on our understanding of the natural world.
Evolution is a mainstay of scientific thought. 300,000+ articles have been published in science journals keyed to the word evolution in the last 15 years, in comparison to a handful of ID review articles (containing no research). Evolution is a well-established, accepted theory, used every day by scientists all over the world. Contrast folks who graduate with a geology degree from a creationist college, who have to use old earth models of geology to find oil, and who admit that they are not able to use anything they learned at school, as it does not correspond with reality.
Compare the success of evolution in explaining the world with creationism, which offers no coherent theory, no reseach program, no facts - only apologetics, criticism of evolution, and a belief that it must be true because that is the way creationists read the bible. These are not competing ideas that deserve equal time. One explains the world around us, the other confounds our understanding by telling us that the clear facts we observe in nature are wrong.
All the pressure to insert "critical analysis" of evolution into public school classrooms comes from creationism camps, and parents & politicians who have been told by their religious leaders that this is an important issue. Especially telling is that calls for critical analysis in science are limited strictly to those items that contradict YEC claims (with the exception of geocentrism - I guess they have conceded on that one). What about controversies in areas that the Bible does not address? They aren't interested.
As a result, there is no scientific or educational value to teaching a creationism perspective on scientific controversy, since it is strictly an apologetics tool, intended to justify YEC theology.
What is worse, there is no legal or logical reason to limit the discussion to creationist talking points - so we are opening the door to astrology (as ID proponent Behe noted in the Dover trial) and any other form of religious belief being certified as science, as long as there are enough members of the local or state school board to insert it into the curriculum. This will result in children getting the clear message that all truth (even about the natural world) is a mater of personal conviction, based not on evidence, but on what religious leaders say must be true. This is a giant step back in knowledge, and presages a return to superstition, ignorance and fear as we lose our grasp on our understanding of the natural world.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Is Evolution Really The Problem?
From Dr. Kennedy's website:
Dr. Kennedy and The Coral Ridge Hour examine the bitter fruit of Darwin's theory that man evolved from matter. This broad-ranging DVD, Evolution: The Root of the Problem shows that Darwin's idea has unleashed horror—bringing death to millions through movements it fostered, such as Nazism and Communism. In America, Darwinism has displaced moral absolutes with moral anarchy in our courts and schools. Evolution: The Root of the Problem features a powerful message from Dr. Kennedy and five in-depth Coral Ridge Hour report.
There is a perceived link between science and atheism, because science provides natural explanations of the world, and seems to leave God out of the equation.
The argument then goes, if God is not needed to explain the world, he can be safely excluded from other parts of life- like religion.
With religion out of the picture, people no longer follow the moral rules laid out in the Bible.
By not following these rules, the argument goes, society falls apart.
Is this really something that can be laid at the feet of evolution? I seem to recall reading in 1 & 2 Kings that Isreal's society fell apart every other generation or so, and at no time was evolution part of the landscape.
At the same time, there is no doubt that accepting special creation is every bit a huge as the realization that the earth is not the center of the universe (the Copernican revolution). Theologians have always explained where people came from - that is, until scientists started investigating the world around them, and discovered that it was somewhat different from they way the Bible described it. Now there are two voices competing for attention - a religious voice, and a secular voice. And they are asking compelling questions.
On what underlying principle do we set up rules to guide us: the principle that we were created by God and so are answerable to him? Or the principle that we "just happened" and so are answerable to no one? This is a great question, but it is not connected to the truth of evolution.
I happen to think that the dichotomy is a false one - and one that faith is bound to lose, if it insists on asking its followers to believe things that are not true as the basic premise of their argument. We do share a common ancestor with other apes. Evolution does happen, and the earth is billions of years old. These are facts that we have to face, and we ought to be dealing with reality, not fighting it in the name of truth.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Do you have to be a literalist to be Christian?
Because most of the science / evolution debate centers around the notion that a literal reading of the Bible is the only correct view, I though it might be interesting to look at ways that the bible is viewed that are not literal, but folks who are both closer to Jesus in time, and undoubtedly Christian. Here are some quotes from various Church Fathers (these folks predate the Catholic church,and helped define what we think of as the basics of the faith). Then there are some quotes from early Fundamentalists (these folks got the movement started), and even CS Lewis. None of them are Biblical Literalists (of the 6 24 hour days persuasion).
I am not trying to say that you can't be a literalist - just that many prominent people in the faith did not seem to think that being a Christian required biblical literalism.
Here are a couple of church fathers who thought that scripture required that the days of creation be 1,000 years long.
Justin Martyr:“For as Adam was told that in the [d]ay [h]e ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.”(Dialog with Typho the Jew chapter 81 [AD 155])
“And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin.”(Against Heresies, 5:23 [AD 189])
St. Cyprian of Carthage:
“As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren hath borne seven”(Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250])
And Origin does not seem to found of the literal interpretation:
“…We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's "commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created," when we quoted the words, "He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;" remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were, very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son--the Word--to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone, and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."(Against Celus 6:60 [AD 248])
Here is Clement of Alexandria:
““That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day. “(Miscellanies 6.16 [208 AD])
St. Augustine:
“But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”(City of God 11:6 [AD 419])
And from this web page, some early Fundamentalists from the 19th century:
By the very early 1900s, even conservative theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary acknowledged to varying degrees:
a) the lengthy history of the earth,b) the transmutation of species by evolution, and even,c) an evolutionary past for the human physical form.
Such theologians included B.B. Warfield, the famous Presbyterian inerrantist, whose famed defense of Scriptural inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration was published in the Princeton Review (1881), and republished since then (B.B. Warfield and Hodge, A.A., Inspiration. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), and who continues to be highly regarded among conservative Protestants.
Even when the twelve-volume series, The Fundamentals (an interdenominational work that spearheaded this century's "fundamentalist" movement), was published between 1910 and 1915, it contained the cautiously pro-evolution stances of conservative Christian theologians like George Frederick Wright, R.A. Torrey, and James Orr. (It was only in the eighth collection of The Fundamentals that the previous cautious advocacy of evolution was matched by two decisively and aggressively anti-Darwin statements, one by someone who remained anonymous and another by the relatively unknown Henry Beach, both of whom lacked the theological and scientific standing of the senior evangelicals already mentioned.)
Reverend Orr, one of the more renowned contributors to The Fundamentals, was a theologian of the United Free Church College in Glasgow and widely respected as an apologist for Evangelicalism, but expressed doubts as to how literal, Genesis, chapter 3, ought to be taken: "I do not enter into the question of how we are to interpret the third chapter of Genesis -- whether as history or allegory or myth, or most probably of all, as old tradition clothed in oriental allegorical dress..." [James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World (1897), p. 185, see also p. 447]
Evangelical Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis, admitted he was not disturbed by the thought of Genesis being "...derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical" [C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (London: Collins, Fontana Books, 1958), p. 93]. "We read in Genesis (2:7) that God formed man of the dust and breathed life into him. For all the first writer knew of it, this passage might merely illustrate the survival, even in a truly creational story, of the Pagan inability to conceive true Creation, the savage, pictorial tendency to imagine God making things 'out of' something as the potter or the carpenter does." [Lewis' essay, "Scripture," in Reflections on the Psalms] Lewis found more truth in the story of the "Garden of Eden" when he regard it as a myth than as history. [See, Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture: His Thoughts on the Nature of Biblical Inspiration, The Role of Revelation and the Question of Inerrancy (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1979), pp. 34-35)]
Evangelical Christian theologian, Henri Blocher, wrote: "The style [of Genesis chapter 3] is lively and picturesque; the pictures take shape spontaneously in the reader's mind. The Lord God takes on a human form: we see him mold clay, breathe into man's nostrils, walk in the garden when the breeze gets up and make for the guilty couple better clothes than their improvised cloths. There is a dream-like garden with strange trees and a cunning animal who opens a conversation; you could believe you were in one of those artless legends, one of those timeless stories which are the fascination of fokelore..." [Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (InterVarsity Press, 1984)]
I am not trying to say that you can't be a literalist - just that many prominent people in the faith did not seem to think that being a Christian required biblical literalism.
Here are a couple of church fathers who thought that scripture required that the days of creation be 1,000 years long.
Justin Martyr:“For as Adam was told that in the [d]ay [h]e ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.”(Dialog with Typho the Jew chapter 81 [AD 155])
“And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin.”(Against Heresies, 5:23 [AD 189])
St. Cyprian of Carthage:
“As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren hath borne seven”(Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250])
And Origin does not seem to found of the literal interpretation:
“…We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's "commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created," when we quoted the words, "He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;" remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were, very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son--the Word--to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone, and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."(Against Celus 6:60 [AD 248])
Here is Clement of Alexandria:
““That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day. “(Miscellanies 6.16 [208 AD])
St. Augustine:
“But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”(City of God 11:6 [AD 419])
And from this web page, some early Fundamentalists from the 19th century:
By the very early 1900s, even conservative theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary acknowledged to varying degrees:
a) the lengthy history of the earth,b) the transmutation of species by evolution, and even,c) an evolutionary past for the human physical form.
Such theologians included B.B. Warfield, the famous Presbyterian inerrantist, whose famed defense of Scriptural inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration was published in the Princeton Review (1881), and republished since then (B.B. Warfield and Hodge, A.A., Inspiration. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), and who continues to be highly regarded among conservative Protestants.
Even when the twelve-volume series, The Fundamentals (an interdenominational work that spearheaded this century's "fundamentalist" movement), was published between 1910 and 1915, it contained the cautiously pro-evolution stances of conservative Christian theologians like George Frederick Wright, R.A. Torrey, and James Orr. (It was only in the eighth collection of The Fundamentals that the previous cautious advocacy of evolution was matched by two decisively and aggressively anti-Darwin statements, one by someone who remained anonymous and another by the relatively unknown Henry Beach, both of whom lacked the theological and scientific standing of the senior evangelicals already mentioned.)
Reverend Orr, one of the more renowned contributors to The Fundamentals, was a theologian of the United Free Church College in Glasgow and widely respected as an apologist for Evangelicalism, but expressed doubts as to how literal, Genesis, chapter 3, ought to be taken: "I do not enter into the question of how we are to interpret the third chapter of Genesis -- whether as history or allegory or myth, or most probably of all, as old tradition clothed in oriental allegorical dress..." [James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World (1897), p. 185, see also p. 447]
Evangelical Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis, admitted he was not disturbed by the thought of Genesis being "...derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical" [C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (London: Collins, Fontana Books, 1958), p. 93]. "We read in Genesis (2:7) that God formed man of the dust and breathed life into him. For all the first writer knew of it, this passage might merely illustrate the survival, even in a truly creational story, of the Pagan inability to conceive true Creation, the savage, pictorial tendency to imagine God making things 'out of' something as the potter or the carpenter does." [Lewis' essay, "Scripture," in Reflections on the Psalms] Lewis found more truth in the story of the "Garden of Eden" when he regard it as a myth than as history. [See, Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture: His Thoughts on the Nature of Biblical Inspiration, The Role of Revelation and the Question of Inerrancy (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1979), pp. 34-35)]
Evangelical Christian theologian, Henri Blocher, wrote: "The style [of Genesis chapter 3] is lively and picturesque; the pictures take shape spontaneously in the reader's mind. The Lord God takes on a human form: we see him mold clay, breathe into man's nostrils, walk in the garden when the breeze gets up and make for the guilty couple better clothes than their improvised cloths. There is a dream-like garden with strange trees and a cunning animal who opens a conversation; you could believe you were in one of those artless legends, one of those timeless stories which are the fascination of fokelore..." [Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (InterVarsity Press, 1984)]
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Is Science a Religion?
The idea that the world can be explained by natural processes is not a metaphysical assumption, opposed by the theist position that only God makes sense of the world. It is the way that science works.
Imagine for a moment a science experiment designed to test if God gave you a cold to improve your character... go ahead and try... I can't either. This does not deny that God could have given you a cold to improve your character - just that there is no scientific way to test the assertion. Further, from a scientific point of view, the pious notion that "the cold is from God" adds nothing to the germ theory of disease, or the search for the virus responsible, or the search for a cure.
It is the same for other areas of science. Its silence about the existence of God is an artifact of the scientific approach - not a metaphysical bias. In fact, adding a "proper theological perspective" in which you only consider possibilities that are supported by your reading of the bible would ruin science, because what you end up with is apologetics (justify faith, not explaining the natural world).
Science is not reigion. Its main fault in the eyes of conservative Christians is that it has failed to validate their theology - for which it is hardly to blame.
Imagine for a moment a science experiment designed to test if God gave you a cold to improve your character... go ahead and try... I can't either. This does not deny that God could have given you a cold to improve your character - just that there is no scientific way to test the assertion. Further, from a scientific point of view, the pious notion that "the cold is from God" adds nothing to the germ theory of disease, or the search for the virus responsible, or the search for a cure.
It is the same for other areas of science. Its silence about the existence of God is an artifact of the scientific approach - not a metaphysical bias. In fact, adding a "proper theological perspective" in which you only consider possibilities that are supported by your reading of the bible would ruin science, because what you end up with is apologetics (justify faith, not explaining the natural world).
Science is not reigion. Its main fault in the eyes of conservative Christians is that it has failed to validate their theology - for which it is hardly to blame.
Is Science True? II
Is our exploration of the natural world a reliable avenue towards uncovering truth?
Judging by our success at explaining the world around us (eclipses are natural events), the root of diseases (viral, bacterial, mental and genetic), and the fabric of the universe (matter breaks down into verified components of fantastical properties), I'd have to say that science is, indeed, a reliable avenue towards truth.
And so would everyone who does not still fear that elementals cause storms, earthquakes and eclipses, everyone who does not live in fear of spirits, and pray that they spare their children, their crops, themselves from sickness and disease, everyone who knows that the world is a reliable place, and not at the command of alchemists, sorcerers, magicians and capricious spirits, who can bend the very earth to their will.
The reason that we face the world with confidence is because of the work of science. It was science who discovered the roots of disease, the regular motions of the stars and planets, and the physical laws governing matter.
Of course, many of us do leave in fear – fear of the stars, of god's wrath, of bad luck. But even this is within the context of an implicit trust in technology – like cars and planes and telephones – that are founded on faith in the truths we have discovered about the natural world.
Are there any limitations to this amazing tool?
Yes, and they strike at the heart of who we are, why we are here, and what other forces inhabit the universe with us. If we cannot formulate an explanation for what we see happening, predict (in both a negative and positive sense) what should happen based on those expectations, and then carry out experiments (and not just us, but anyone who wants to verify the results), then the tool fails us.
So no proofs about the existence or lack of gods, the supernatural, the afterlife. Not because science is hostile to faith, but because God is invisible to science - by definition.
So when you look at science and ask only, "Does it support my religious faith?" you may wonder why science does not endorse religion - this is why; it can't. When you look at the complexity of the universe, you may wonder why scientists don't just give up and admit that God did it - this is why; it isn't that it is a wrong answer; but it isn't the RIGHT KIND of answer.
When you look at science from the perspective of the quest for understanding the universe, "God did it" is an unsatisfactory answer - because the scientist is asking a different question - "How did it happen?" And as an answer, "God did it" is not nearly specific enough.
Judging by our success at explaining the world around us (eclipses are natural events), the root of diseases (viral, bacterial, mental and genetic), and the fabric of the universe (matter breaks down into verified components of fantastical properties), I'd have to say that science is, indeed, a reliable avenue towards truth.
And so would everyone who does not still fear that elementals cause storms, earthquakes and eclipses, everyone who does not live in fear of spirits, and pray that they spare their children, their crops, themselves from sickness and disease, everyone who knows that the world is a reliable place, and not at the command of alchemists, sorcerers, magicians and capricious spirits, who can bend the very earth to their will.
The reason that we face the world with confidence is because of the work of science. It was science who discovered the roots of disease, the regular motions of the stars and planets, and the physical laws governing matter.
Of course, many of us do leave in fear – fear of the stars, of god's wrath, of bad luck. But even this is within the context of an implicit trust in technology – like cars and planes and telephones – that are founded on faith in the truths we have discovered about the natural world.
Are there any limitations to this amazing tool?
Yes, and they strike at the heart of who we are, why we are here, and what other forces inhabit the universe with us. If we cannot formulate an explanation for what we see happening, predict (in both a negative and positive sense) what should happen based on those expectations, and then carry out experiments (and not just us, but anyone who wants to verify the results), then the tool fails us.
So no proofs about the existence or lack of gods, the supernatural, the afterlife. Not because science is hostile to faith, but because God is invisible to science - by definition.
So when you look at science and ask only, "Does it support my religious faith?" you may wonder why science does not endorse religion - this is why; it can't. When you look at the complexity of the universe, you may wonder why scientists don't just give up and admit that God did it - this is why; it isn't that it is a wrong answer; but it isn't the RIGHT KIND of answer.
When you look at science from the perspective of the quest for understanding the universe, "God did it" is an unsatisfactory answer - because the scientist is asking a different question - "How did it happen?" And as an answer, "God did it" is not nearly specific enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
