Secularism is an approach to civil order that argues that the religious beliefs of a particular sect or religion should not dominate the legal and social structures of a society. It is an approach to dealing with pluralism. What do you do when the citizens of your country are not just biblical literalists, but also Protestants with varying views of the Bible; Catholics, Orthodox, Gnostic and so on (yes, including mutually contradictory beliefs on what constitutes heresy), not to mention Mormonism, Scientology, Unity, various Native American, Pagan, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Janist, Zoroastrian, etc. etc.?
One approach is to set up religious police (dare I say Inquisitor?). You can revise the Constitution to include a religious test for public office (surely if teachers have to pass muster on what they can teach, politicians should as well). Of course, I hope you will agree that this is not a good idea (if for no other reason than there is insufficient time for any particular group to vet everyone, and you really can't trust anyone else, if the history of denominational splits is any indication). After all, without a national religious purity group, you'd get all sorts of regional and local variation, and that won't do, if the point is adherence to a particular approach to biblical literalism. Sure, conservative are banded together now, but that is because of a perceived common enemy. There would be no where near as much cooperation in victory.
The alternative is to remain a secular state. So what does that mean? It means that you don't push ANYONE's religion. So what do you teach in school? Reading, writing, math, science, the arts, history, humanities...
Of course, you immediately run afoul of various faiths at this point. What books do you read? Whose history do you teach? What is a fitting subject of the arts? What views can be expressed, especially if they are critical of a particular religious belief or practice? What conclusions of science do you discuss? Almost all scientific facts offend someone's religious beliefs. Christian Scientists reject the germ theory of disease. Mormons dispute the settlement patterns of North America, Hindus reject the idea of the heat death of the universe, Islamic, Christian, Jewish and Hindu conservatives reject evolution (though they may disagree on the details of the alternatives).
If you are a biblical literalist, do you think about these questions - the implications of the cultural victory you strive for, or do you long for a theistic state, with your interpretation of the Bible deciding all these questions, forgetting the struggle for power that comes with control of the apparatus of government? Can you see that even if you want a theocracy, you have no consensus on how that works out in practice? That the history of religious / state conflicts have been bloody and savage? That our Constitution enshrines secularism for a reason? If you are not a literalist, do you see that this discussion is important, perhaps even critical?
I do not want biblical literalists to force my children to learn a non-scientific, non-biblical version of history and science. I don't want to live in fear of being punished because I have run afoul of one specific group's religious beliefs about the fitness of my faith to pastor a church or teach in public school. I hold that it is wrong to force a particular religion on the culture, and to fire teachers who have done no more than state what the evidence demonstrates; that the creation story and the flood are non-historical; that evolution best explains the diversity of life on the planet; that God speaks through people, who share the cultural limitations of their place in history. Sure, you can believe as you see fit; but the broader culture should not be forced to live under your censorship, especially when it comes to the discoveries of science.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Why Are Some Christians so Wedded to Creationism?
After some years of trying (with little success) to convince creationists that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it has become clear that the objection is primarily theological, and not evidential. The reason that creationists will not accept evolution is because it contradicts their theology, and no amount of reasoning concerning evolution will address that.
This leads me to the conclusion that more attention needs to be placed on the theology of creationism. There are at least two faulty assumptions creationists make. First, that the Bible should be taken as “literal” truth, and second, that the God of the Bible would deceive humans (plant misleading evidence) as to the origins of the natural world by making it seem that the world is one way (old), while it is actually some other way (young).
Assumption 1: The Bible is Meant to Be Taken Literally
Creationists argue that the main mode for understanding the Bible is to take its plain meaning. Though this is a generally sound approach, it fails when you ignore the cultural and historical context of the Bible, and when you ignore clues from the natural world. For example, creationists argue that the Genesis creation accounts are to be taken literally. There are several problems with this assertion.
1. Both Jewish and Christian theologians, both today and throughout history, have taken a variety of non-literal views of the Genesis story. Though a literal approach is one possibility, given scientific evidence, it should be abandoned, just as the church abandoned geocentrism.
2. There are two creation stories (Genesis 1:1-2:3, and Genesis 2:4-2:25). These accounts do not mesh, leading to the clear conclusion that neither should be viewed as “scientific” truth about how the world came to be, and how life (and people) were created. The most obvious demonstration of the need for a non-literal approach here is that that man and woman are created together, in the image of God, and after plants and animals in the first story, while man is created BEFORE plants, animals, sun, moon and stars in the second story, with woman created almost as an afterthought (“but for the man, no suitable helper could be found”) from man‘s rib.
3. The Genesis creation story does not make sense as a scientific explanation, as day and night are “created” before the sun, green plants before the sun, and the sun, moon and stars all described as being fixed in the sky.
4. Stories like the long day in Joshua 10 (which states in verse 11 “The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day“) show that the Bible incorporates then-current cosmology into its worldview (we know this, because stopping the sun would not impact the length of the day).
5. Stories like Noah’s ark (which describe a worldwide flood that did not happen) reinforce that the Bible is not a science textbook. Apologetics for the global flood end up making claims that the Bible itself does not support (for example, large-scale geographic changes - gorges carved, mountains raised etc).
Assumption 2: Scientific Evidence is Wrong (God Intended Non-Believers to be Deceived)
Creationists have to deny that science discovers accurate things about the world. Taken as a whole, there is no doubt that the world is old, and that we share common ancestors with all life. There is no evidence for a young earth or special creation. These facts have to be denied, in order to promote creationism. Science is not judged by how closely it describes reality, but by how close it matches creationism. "Useful" science is readily incorporated into creationist doctrine (for example, "micro" evolution), but those same scientists are suspect when they fail to support creationist theology.
1. While accusing scientists of fabricating support for evolution, creationists distort the plain meaning of the Bible, create miracles where none are mentioned (parent-less baby dinosaurs living as vegetarians on the ark), and believe things about evolution and biology that no working scientist finds credible (for example, the extinction of dinosaurs in rigid order (all the dinosaurs of the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous dying in the same group order all over the world, without EVER getting mixed up). Easy to explain if they were separated by millions of years - rather more difficult if they all lived at the same time only a few thousand years ago).
2. Creationists Arbitrarily Deny "Macro" Evolution
Just like creationists had to admit that the “geocentric” view of the Bible was wrong, so they have had to concede that evolution, as a mechanism, exists (after all, we observe it real-time in the lab, and in the world around us). So now they accept “micro” evolution (changes within species), but deny the evolution of major organs or systems (in spite of excellent evidence for the evolution of flight three different times, or the land-mammal-to-whale fossil evidence - to mention just two examples among many). Why deny "macro" evolution? Because they have had to fabricate an extra-biblical concept of "kinds" as generic animals types from which modern animals evolved in order to maintain a belief in special creation.
3. Creationists Arbitrarily Endow "Micro" Evolution with Abilities it Lacks
Now that they have embraced evolution, they credit it with far more than can be supported by the evidence or theory. From a few thousand “kinds“ on the ark, more than 16 million plus species must have radiated out from Mount Ararat to all the remote corners of the world - crossing oceans, adapting to new environments, evading new predators. And remember that we have written history going back to the supposed flood date, and the existing species we are familiar with were with us then as well, so this must have happened in the blink of an eye. If the flood happened around 2500 B.C., this gives virtually no time for this incredibly rapid evolution. Again, no scientist believes that the genome is capable of this rate of evolution, nor is there any explanation for why the rate of evolution ground to a halt some four thousand years ago.
A Powerful Motivation
So creationists are in the uncomfortable position of forcing the Bible to mean things it clearly does not, and forcing evolution to do things it clearly cannot. There must be a powerful motivation for this kind of rationalization and denial. I think there are at least 4:
1. A Desire to Control the Interpretation of the Bible
The larger church has embraced a wide range of Biblical interpretation. Creationists are uncomfortable with many of these, and see Biblical literalism as a way of “closing the door” on teachings they do not approve of (while reserving the right to interpret the Bible less literally when needed (for example, in “harmonizing” Genesis 1 and 2, or allowing women to go to church with heads uncovered)).
2. A Desire to Retain Confidence in the Historicity of the Bible
The physical life, death and resurrection of Jesus is central to creationist’s theology. Creationism is a kind of “forward line” in their defense of this doctrine. A common argument is that, if Genesis 1 is not meant to be taken as history, then how do you support the resurrection of Jesus as history? The immediate problem with this argument is that, as it is certain that Genesis 1 is not history, this seems like an unfortunate linkage to make, as this belief requires that you either have to give up science, or the historicity of the resurrection. A more tenable position would be one that recognizes the cultural forces at work in the Bible, recognizing that its authors were humans, limited in their understanding of geology, cosmology, biology, physics - in fact, lacking even adequate vocabulary to express much of what we now know to be true about the natural world. The Bible was not created all at once, or even assembled until after the Apostolic age; there is no reason to link the historicity of Genesis with the evidence for the life of Jesus.
3. A Desire to View the Bible as “Verbally” Inspired
Most creationists also argue that the Bible is without error - each word is from God (the human writer's cultural and religious beliefs did not impinge on the contents of the text). When pressed about some errors found in the Bible, many fall back to the position that the “original manuscripts” are inerrant. We no longer have the originals, and copy errors account for any mistakes of fact. Much of the creative biblical interpretation among creationists are devoted to harmonizing or otherwise explaining away errors or contradictions in the Bible.
The undeniable fact that the Bible does contain lots of cultural bias (against slaves, against women, against folks from other religions, for example), as usual, is faced when it can't be denied,or when a particular practice is no longer in vogue. An example is the requirement that a woman's head be covered in church. In most creationist circles, this is no longer required - not because the Bible changed, but because our culture changed. Essentially, I am arguing that the same reevaluation of Genesis (in light of science) is at least as valid as the church's reevaluation of women's head coverings.
4. A Belief that Only Creationists' Theology Provides a Basis for Salvation and a Moral Society
Ultimately, you are going to Hell unless you believe like they do. What is more, all social ills are because other people don’t believe like they do (on the other hand, when people who DO believe like they do commit crimes or immoral acts, this is because they are only human).
Despite the fact that there are less religious cultures with lower rates of crime, divorce, and disease, and higher rates satisfaction with life, there is a belief that only a civilization founded on their interpretation of the Bible can be successful.
As you can see, the reasons creationists deny science have to do with maintaining a particular perspective on the Bible. However, this theology comes with a high cost; science and scientists are slandered in the process (cast as at best deluded, and at worst enemies of God), truth is denied, and the Bible itself is distorted. These facts should be warning signs that creationist theology is on the wrong track.
This leads me to the conclusion that more attention needs to be placed on the theology of creationism. There are at least two faulty assumptions creationists make. First, that the Bible should be taken as “literal” truth, and second, that the God of the Bible would deceive humans (plant misleading evidence) as to the origins of the natural world by making it seem that the world is one way (old), while it is actually some other way (young).
Assumption 1: The Bible is Meant to Be Taken Literally
Creationists argue that the main mode for understanding the Bible is to take its plain meaning. Though this is a generally sound approach, it fails when you ignore the cultural and historical context of the Bible, and when you ignore clues from the natural world. For example, creationists argue that the Genesis creation accounts are to be taken literally. There are several problems with this assertion.
1. Both Jewish and Christian theologians, both today and throughout history, have taken a variety of non-literal views of the Genesis story. Though a literal approach is one possibility, given scientific evidence, it should be abandoned, just as the church abandoned geocentrism.
2. There are two creation stories (Genesis 1:1-2:3, and Genesis 2:4-2:25). These accounts do not mesh, leading to the clear conclusion that neither should be viewed as “scientific” truth about how the world came to be, and how life (and people) were created. The most obvious demonstration of the need for a non-literal approach here is that that man and woman are created together, in the image of God, and after plants and animals in the first story, while man is created BEFORE plants, animals, sun, moon and stars in the second story, with woman created almost as an afterthought (“but for the man, no suitable helper could be found”) from man‘s rib.
3. The Genesis creation story does not make sense as a scientific explanation, as day and night are “created” before the sun, green plants before the sun, and the sun, moon and stars all described as being fixed in the sky.
4. Stories like the long day in Joshua 10 (which states in verse 11 “The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day“) show that the Bible incorporates then-current cosmology into its worldview (we know this, because stopping the sun would not impact the length of the day).
5. Stories like Noah’s ark (which describe a worldwide flood that did not happen) reinforce that the Bible is not a science textbook. Apologetics for the global flood end up making claims that the Bible itself does not support (for example, large-scale geographic changes - gorges carved, mountains raised etc).
Assumption 2: Scientific Evidence is Wrong (God Intended Non-Believers to be Deceived)
Creationists have to deny that science discovers accurate things about the world. Taken as a whole, there is no doubt that the world is old, and that we share common ancestors with all life. There is no evidence for a young earth or special creation. These facts have to be denied, in order to promote creationism. Science is not judged by how closely it describes reality, but by how close it matches creationism. "Useful" science is readily incorporated into creationist doctrine (for example, "micro" evolution), but those same scientists are suspect when they fail to support creationist theology.
1. While accusing scientists of fabricating support for evolution, creationists distort the plain meaning of the Bible, create miracles where none are mentioned (parent-less baby dinosaurs living as vegetarians on the ark), and believe things about evolution and biology that no working scientist finds credible (for example, the extinction of dinosaurs in rigid order (all the dinosaurs of the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous dying in the same group order all over the world, without EVER getting mixed up). Easy to explain if they were separated by millions of years - rather more difficult if they all lived at the same time only a few thousand years ago).
2. Creationists Arbitrarily Deny "Macro" Evolution
Just like creationists had to admit that the “geocentric” view of the Bible was wrong, so they have had to concede that evolution, as a mechanism, exists (after all, we observe it real-time in the lab, and in the world around us). So now they accept “micro” evolution (changes within species), but deny the evolution of major organs or systems (in spite of excellent evidence for the evolution of flight three different times, or the land-mammal-to-whale fossil evidence - to mention just two examples among many). Why deny "macro" evolution? Because they have had to fabricate an extra-biblical concept of "kinds" as generic animals types from which modern animals evolved in order to maintain a belief in special creation.
3. Creationists Arbitrarily Endow "Micro" Evolution with Abilities it Lacks
Now that they have embraced evolution, they credit it with far more than can be supported by the evidence or theory. From a few thousand “kinds“ on the ark, more than 16 million plus species must have radiated out from Mount Ararat to all the remote corners of the world - crossing oceans, adapting to new environments, evading new predators. And remember that we have written history going back to the supposed flood date, and the existing species we are familiar with were with us then as well, so this must have happened in the blink of an eye. If the flood happened around 2500 B.C., this gives virtually no time for this incredibly rapid evolution. Again, no scientist believes that the genome is capable of this rate of evolution, nor is there any explanation for why the rate of evolution ground to a halt some four thousand years ago.
A Powerful Motivation
So creationists are in the uncomfortable position of forcing the Bible to mean things it clearly does not, and forcing evolution to do things it clearly cannot. There must be a powerful motivation for this kind of rationalization and denial. I think there are at least 4:
1. A Desire to Control the Interpretation of the Bible
The larger church has embraced a wide range of Biblical interpretation. Creationists are uncomfortable with many of these, and see Biblical literalism as a way of “closing the door” on teachings they do not approve of (while reserving the right to interpret the Bible less literally when needed (for example, in “harmonizing” Genesis 1 and 2, or allowing women to go to church with heads uncovered)).
2. A Desire to Retain Confidence in the Historicity of the Bible
The physical life, death and resurrection of Jesus is central to creationist’s theology. Creationism is a kind of “forward line” in their defense of this doctrine. A common argument is that, if Genesis 1 is not meant to be taken as history, then how do you support the resurrection of Jesus as history? The immediate problem with this argument is that, as it is certain that Genesis 1 is not history, this seems like an unfortunate linkage to make, as this belief requires that you either have to give up science, or the historicity of the resurrection. A more tenable position would be one that recognizes the cultural forces at work in the Bible, recognizing that its authors were humans, limited in their understanding of geology, cosmology, biology, physics - in fact, lacking even adequate vocabulary to express much of what we now know to be true about the natural world. The Bible was not created all at once, or even assembled until after the Apostolic age; there is no reason to link the historicity of Genesis with the evidence for the life of Jesus.
3. A Desire to View the Bible as “Verbally” Inspired
Most creationists also argue that the Bible is without error - each word is from God (the human writer's cultural and religious beliefs did not impinge on the contents of the text). When pressed about some errors found in the Bible, many fall back to the position that the “original manuscripts” are inerrant. We no longer have the originals, and copy errors account for any mistakes of fact. Much of the creative biblical interpretation among creationists are devoted to harmonizing or otherwise explaining away errors or contradictions in the Bible.
The undeniable fact that the Bible does contain lots of cultural bias (against slaves, against women, against folks from other religions, for example), as usual, is faced when it can't be denied,or when a particular practice is no longer in vogue. An example is the requirement that a woman's head be covered in church. In most creationist circles, this is no longer required - not because the Bible changed, but because our culture changed. Essentially, I am arguing that the same reevaluation of Genesis (in light of science) is at least as valid as the church's reevaluation of women's head coverings.
4. A Belief that Only Creationists' Theology Provides a Basis for Salvation and a Moral Society
Ultimately, you are going to Hell unless you believe like they do. What is more, all social ills are because other people don’t believe like they do (on the other hand, when people who DO believe like they do commit crimes or immoral acts, this is because they are only human).
Despite the fact that there are less religious cultures with lower rates of crime, divorce, and disease, and higher rates satisfaction with life, there is a belief that only a civilization founded on their interpretation of the Bible can be successful.
As you can see, the reasons creationists deny science have to do with maintaining a particular perspective on the Bible. However, this theology comes with a high cost; science and scientists are slandered in the process (cast as at best deluded, and at worst enemies of God), truth is denied, and the Bible itself is distorted. These facts should be warning signs that creationist theology is on the wrong track.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Ditch Magical Thinking
Science has been put forward (at least in the classical Western mind-set) as the most effective way to understand the natural world. Although science is often faulted for being incomplete, or inadequate to the task of explaining all of our experience, it has a unique place in our culture - it explains our world, and allows us to develop effective technologies in a way that magic and speculative philosophy never has.
For example, though someone may completely ignore their health, play the lottery, read their horoscope, believe in ghosts (all indications of magical thinking)– they still get on an airplane (the fruit of science). They don’t understand Bernoulli's principle, so it may as well be imps holding the plane up as a difference in air pressure. The fact that no one rode in airplanes even 100 years ago (or used a telephone, or a computer, or a light bulb, or sat in a car) underscores the 1,000s of technologies that have come from a better understanding of how the world works. Magic has never worked over the entire course of human history, while science has enabled technologies that rival the wildest fables. You’d think that folks would compare the outcome of magical thinking, and the outcome of scientific thinking and draw the obvious conclusions. Still, most folks seem to embrace the fruit of science, while retaining a magical worldview.
When we discover (much to our surprise) that magic is invisible to science, magical thinkers see this as a fault of science, not as an error in their way of seeing the world. Yet magical thinking injects inaccurate, often dangerous ways of viewing the world. Consider the popularity of prosperity thinking (currently championed by no less than Oprah) in a world where we allow billions to face hunger, famine, disease, and early preventable death. Consider our unwillingness to face up to the way we have polluted our world, while ignoring the clear results – declining fisheries, animal extinctions, global warming. We can raise over 600 million dollars in 10 days to see Spiderman III, but we can’t be bothered to address Darfur, the Central African Republic, drug resistant TB, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, acute malnutrition - the list goes on.
We forget that we live in a democracy (that is, we are responsible for the state of things), and let our infrastructure crumble, our children go without health coverage, and our commitment to fairness and decency dissolve, while we seek immediate gratification (and fall further in debt).
At least one reason these things happen is that we fail to see the obvious conclusions science presents us, and take responsibility for ourselves, our community and our planet. Magic does not work, and our culture is not going to be made happy, healthy or wise by magical thinking. We cannot hand over political power to the greedy and corrupt and expect good to come of it. We can’t insist on buying the cheapest goods and expect anything other than exploitation, slavery and shoddy practices to come of it.
Instead, we should be spending our political and economic capital in ways that help build a world in which we all can live. Paying careful attention to the way things are (the legacy of science) is a first step in this process, because it helps us exchange our magical (wishful) thinking for a glimpse of what actually is. Even more crucial are the next steps, where we create a fairer, more just culture based, not on what we wished was real, but based on what actually exists.
For example, though someone may completely ignore their health, play the lottery, read their horoscope, believe in ghosts (all indications of magical thinking)– they still get on an airplane (the fruit of science). They don’t understand Bernoulli's principle, so it may as well be imps holding the plane up as a difference in air pressure. The fact that no one rode in airplanes even 100 years ago (or used a telephone, or a computer, or a light bulb, or sat in a car) underscores the 1,000s of technologies that have come from a better understanding of how the world works. Magic has never worked over the entire course of human history, while science has enabled technologies that rival the wildest fables. You’d think that folks would compare the outcome of magical thinking, and the outcome of scientific thinking and draw the obvious conclusions. Still, most folks seem to embrace the fruit of science, while retaining a magical worldview.
When we discover (much to our surprise) that magic is invisible to science, magical thinkers see this as a fault of science, not as an error in their way of seeing the world. Yet magical thinking injects inaccurate, often dangerous ways of viewing the world. Consider the popularity of prosperity thinking (currently championed by no less than Oprah) in a world where we allow billions to face hunger, famine, disease, and early preventable death. Consider our unwillingness to face up to the way we have polluted our world, while ignoring the clear results – declining fisheries, animal extinctions, global warming. We can raise over 600 million dollars in 10 days to see Spiderman III, but we can’t be bothered to address Darfur, the Central African Republic, drug resistant TB, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, acute malnutrition - the list goes on.
We forget that we live in a democracy (that is, we are responsible for the state of things), and let our infrastructure crumble, our children go without health coverage, and our commitment to fairness and decency dissolve, while we seek immediate gratification (and fall further in debt).
At least one reason these things happen is that we fail to see the obvious conclusions science presents us, and take responsibility for ourselves, our community and our planet. Magic does not work, and our culture is not going to be made happy, healthy or wise by magical thinking. We cannot hand over political power to the greedy and corrupt and expect good to come of it. We can’t insist on buying the cheapest goods and expect anything other than exploitation, slavery and shoddy practices to come of it.
Instead, we should be spending our political and economic capital in ways that help build a world in which we all can live. Paying careful attention to the way things are (the legacy of science) is a first step in this process, because it helps us exchange our magical (wishful) thinking for a glimpse of what actually is. Even more crucial are the next steps, where we create a fairer, more just culture based, not on what we wished was real, but based on what actually exists.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Any Room for Faith?
So I've heard that my last post seems a little bleak.
I have to say that this is pretty much how it ... Sorry for repeating the bleak part.
The "On the other hand?"
The experience of billions of people is that they experience patterns, events, feelings, circumstances that cannot be explained by viewing their life as simply a series of natural causes and effects. From answers to prayer, to physical healing, to synchronicities too amazing to be coincidence, the reports of the overwhelming majority of people is that there is some extra dimension to their life - some spiritual component that is required to make sense of their experience.
I don't doubt this. I experience it myself. I am, however, coming to recognize that, however it is explained, this is not what we have traditionally thought of as 'supernatural" experiences. I am not saying that they don't exist, and by calling them natural I am not trying to rule out the activities of God or what we think of as spiritual forces - I am simply suggesting that whatever these things are, they operate withing the natural world.
Why do I think this? Partially because of the evidence science provides, that natural causation is not violated. Before you insist that this is the case, consider that the world of the Bible is not supernatural - God is portrayed as potent in the natural world - Spirit, yes, but not without the means to impact this world.
I have to say that this is pretty much how it ... Sorry for repeating the bleak part.
The "On the other hand?"
The experience of billions of people is that they experience patterns, events, feelings, circumstances that cannot be explained by viewing their life as simply a series of natural causes and effects. From answers to prayer, to physical healing, to synchronicities too amazing to be coincidence, the reports of the overwhelming majority of people is that there is some extra dimension to their life - some spiritual component that is required to make sense of their experience.
I don't doubt this. I experience it myself. I am, however, coming to recognize that, however it is explained, this is not what we have traditionally thought of as 'supernatural" experiences. I am not saying that they don't exist, and by calling them natural I am not trying to rule out the activities of God or what we think of as spiritual forces - I am simply suggesting that whatever these things are, they operate withing the natural world.
Why do I think this? Partially because of the evidence science provides, that natural causation is not violated. Before you insist that this is the case, consider that the world of the Bible is not supernatural - God is portrayed as potent in the natural world - Spirit, yes, but not without the means to impact this world.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
What We Need to Believe
Reading a review of Behe's new book God as Genetic Engineer, I am reminded that what creationists claim as true, and what even creationist proponents believe can be supported by the evidence are two different things.
For example, Behe accepts an old age for the earth, common ancestors for chimps and humans, and the ability of sequential mutations to increase an organism's chances for survival. He accepts these things, though they contradict biblical literalism, because the evidence is compelling.
Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, given a chance to clarify his views of evolution, backs away from a literal reading of Genesis, and says that faith and science are not in conflict - meaning that evolution happened, and that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally.
What remains? A conviction, widely held, that "all this is not an accident." The notion that some way, some how, "God did it." This is not based on the Bible or science – it is a "gut feeling" that life is not just a series of random events – that we have a privileged place in the universe.
The difficulty, of course, is in getting down to specifics. It is clear that God did not do it as laid out in the Bible (or any other religious text). It is clear that God (as immediate cause) is not needed to explain any part of the world we live in (except to assert that in some as-yet-not-understood way, “God did it”).
Not only do we find no clear evidence of God acting in history or our day-to-day world, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no known mechanism for supernatural action at all. The response of faith is, “well, obviously, science is wrong, because God does act.” That, and the other theistic response - that the things we discover about the natural world, including cosmology and evolution, is how God does it.
So how can smart people like Behe and Huckabee and Brownback live with this cognitive dissonance (claiming both that the all we can know about are material causes, and faith’s claims that all the important causes are supernatural)? They know (and even publicly admit) that the Bible does not accurately portray (when taken even semi-literally) the history and workings of the natural world. Yet they find themselves compelled by their belief to insist that God has taken a direct (though unspecified) role in shaping the natural world, the historical events in the world in the last few thousand years, and in the day-to-day events of their (and billions of others') lives.
Treat this like a large-scale survey about what people need and want in their lives. They want the world to make sense. They need there to be order and pattern and purpose. We experience the effects of this unmet need in the social chaos we see around us - people seeking any number of things (much self- and socially- destructive) to escape pointlessness and boredom, alienation and loneliness.
Science is often perceived as relentlessly eroding a sense of purpose and significance - at best silent, and at worse dismissive of the notion that we can have a special relationship with a supernatural force that impacts our world in a way that benefits our daily life, community and world history. Science earns this reputation by failing to find any evidence that claims of supernatural intervention have any basis in fact.
The implications are not lost on people of faith: absent supernatural intervention, we may not be a special people, and our leaders not appointed by the gods. This may not be not the promised land. The seasons and weather may not reflect supernatural approval or disapproval of our actions. Wealth may not be a sign of divine favor. Parking spaces may not be held open for us by the great valet in the sky. Worse, much of what happens may be as pointless, random and unfair as it seems. Meaning may be where we find it, and love may be where we make room for it.
Of course, this could all be taken as a wakeup call to grow up and take more responsibility for our lives, our relationships, our community and planet. Conversely, many people have tried and failed the attempt to be responsible and proactive, and have found themselves unable to cope with the despair, the open alternatives, the absence of any objective set of values or fixed compass by which to navigate. They turn to faith for certainty, for direction, even purpose.
So the reaction is often to blame the messenger - science. This is normal - especially since the expectations for science and technology are so great, and science and technology has proven such a mixed blessing. Still, the message, such as it is, is accurate.
Science cannot get us out of this mess, because it is not a religion, offers no path to meaning and purpose, and is not, in itself, a foundation for meaningful community.
People seem to need a sense of purpose, significance, and community. We seem to need a sense of our place, and a way to make a meaningful, lasting contribution. We want to be safe, and to be free from fear and want. We obviously to need to learn how to be social creatures, able to interact positively with others – and to do that, we need stable, helpful models. This takes enduring institutions and an extravagant investment of time and compassion. It takes a way of starting over, a way of being held accountable, a way of being forced to live within some limits.
The value of individuals, the right relationship between a government and the governed, an individuals obligations to their community (and vice versa)- these are all tightly bound up with people's moral, ethical and religious beliefs.
Science is not a replacement for faith or morals, but it often represents the only viable alternative to revelation or arbitrary claims of authority. It is can be an infuriating goad to arbitrary authority. Science can be stifling orthodoxy to folks who are trying to think in new ways. Because science makes no claim to infallibility, and yet is often viewed as the final arbiter of truth - (both claims have some merit), science is seen as both autocratic and fractious, authoritative, and as changeable as the next discovery or clinical trial.
The best way to defend science is to build healthy communities of people who, among other things, embrace science as a tool - neither making it an oracle, nor forcing it to be subservient to some other master (politics, capitalism, prejudice or religious dogma). Science is a critical tool exactly because it can help us discover accurate things about our world. When we silence science (as we have in the discussions of global warming, for political purposes, in our drug approval process, for economic motives, and so on) we all lose - because we have diminished our ability to distinguish claim from fact, and are more at the mercy of dogma and demagogues, wild speculation, ignorance and superstition.
For example, Behe accepts an old age for the earth, common ancestors for chimps and humans, and the ability of sequential mutations to increase an organism's chances for survival. He accepts these things, though they contradict biblical literalism, because the evidence is compelling.
Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, given a chance to clarify his views of evolution, backs away from a literal reading of Genesis, and says that faith and science are not in conflict - meaning that evolution happened, and that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally.
What remains? A conviction, widely held, that "all this is not an accident." The notion that some way, some how, "God did it." This is not based on the Bible or science – it is a "gut feeling" that life is not just a series of random events – that we have a privileged place in the universe.
The difficulty, of course, is in getting down to specifics. It is clear that God did not do it as laid out in the Bible (or any other religious text). It is clear that God (as immediate cause) is not needed to explain any part of the world we live in (except to assert that in some as-yet-not-understood way, “God did it”).
Not only do we find no clear evidence of God acting in history or our day-to-day world, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no known mechanism for supernatural action at all. The response of faith is, “well, obviously, science is wrong, because God does act.” That, and the other theistic response - that the things we discover about the natural world, including cosmology and evolution, is how God does it.
So how can smart people like Behe and Huckabee and Brownback live with this cognitive dissonance (claiming both that the all we can know about are material causes, and faith’s claims that all the important causes are supernatural)? They know (and even publicly admit) that the Bible does not accurately portray (when taken even semi-literally) the history and workings of the natural world. Yet they find themselves compelled by their belief to insist that God has taken a direct (though unspecified) role in shaping the natural world, the historical events in the world in the last few thousand years, and in the day-to-day events of their (and billions of others') lives.
Treat this like a large-scale survey about what people need and want in their lives. They want the world to make sense. They need there to be order and pattern and purpose. We experience the effects of this unmet need in the social chaos we see around us - people seeking any number of things (much self- and socially- destructive) to escape pointlessness and boredom, alienation and loneliness.
Science is often perceived as relentlessly eroding a sense of purpose and significance - at best silent, and at worse dismissive of the notion that we can have a special relationship with a supernatural force that impacts our world in a way that benefits our daily life, community and world history. Science earns this reputation by failing to find any evidence that claims of supernatural intervention have any basis in fact.
The implications are not lost on people of faith: absent supernatural intervention, we may not be a special people, and our leaders not appointed by the gods. This may not be not the promised land. The seasons and weather may not reflect supernatural approval or disapproval of our actions. Wealth may not be a sign of divine favor. Parking spaces may not be held open for us by the great valet in the sky. Worse, much of what happens may be as pointless, random and unfair as it seems. Meaning may be where we find it, and love may be where we make room for it.
Of course, this could all be taken as a wakeup call to grow up and take more responsibility for our lives, our relationships, our community and planet. Conversely, many people have tried and failed the attempt to be responsible and proactive, and have found themselves unable to cope with the despair, the open alternatives, the absence of any objective set of values or fixed compass by which to navigate. They turn to faith for certainty, for direction, even purpose.
So the reaction is often to blame the messenger - science. This is normal - especially since the expectations for science and technology are so great, and science and technology has proven such a mixed blessing. Still, the message, such as it is, is accurate.
Science cannot get us out of this mess, because it is not a religion, offers no path to meaning and purpose, and is not, in itself, a foundation for meaningful community.
People seem to need a sense of purpose, significance, and community. We seem to need a sense of our place, and a way to make a meaningful, lasting contribution. We want to be safe, and to be free from fear and want. We obviously to need to learn how to be social creatures, able to interact positively with others – and to do that, we need stable, helpful models. This takes enduring institutions and an extravagant investment of time and compassion. It takes a way of starting over, a way of being held accountable, a way of being forced to live within some limits.
The value of individuals, the right relationship between a government and the governed, an individuals obligations to their community (and vice versa)- these are all tightly bound up with people's moral, ethical and religious beliefs.
Science is not a replacement for faith or morals, but it often represents the only viable alternative to revelation or arbitrary claims of authority. It is can be an infuriating goad to arbitrary authority. Science can be stifling orthodoxy to folks who are trying to think in new ways. Because science makes no claim to infallibility, and yet is often viewed as the final arbiter of truth - (both claims have some merit), science is seen as both autocratic and fractious, authoritative, and as changeable as the next discovery or clinical trial.
The best way to defend science is to build healthy communities of people who, among other things, embrace science as a tool - neither making it an oracle, nor forcing it to be subservient to some other master (politics, capitalism, prejudice or religious dogma). Science is a critical tool exactly because it can help us discover accurate things about our world. When we silence science (as we have in the discussions of global warming, for political purposes, in our drug approval process, for economic motives, and so on) we all lose - because we have diminished our ability to distinguish claim from fact, and are more at the mercy of dogma and demagogues, wild speculation, ignorance and superstition.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Invitation to the Big Tent
While science engages with religious conservatives on issues like scientific proof for a young earth, global flood and special creation, what these literalists are actually doing is presenting the following syllogism:
A moral culture can only be built on the Bible
The Bible is only authoritative if taken literally
Therefore, to have a moral culture, the Bible must be taken literally
This logic has a lot of traction with non-literalists, who want a safe culture in which to live and raise their kids. The world is in fact worrisome, and free-market capitalism has not delivered the promised happy and abundant society.
Science is portrayed as insisting that the Bible cannot be taken literally, which turns out to be seen as an attack on attempts to build a moral society. This puts science on the side of the bad guys. That science is correct in its rejection of literalists’ claims is no defense.
"No wonder society is sick," conservatives say, "if science is allowed to tear down the only foundation for ethical behavior."
You might notice that science is only peripheral to this issue – and to argue for strong science without addressing the assumptions about what is required to have a moral society is to be relegated to the less-interesting part of the discussion.
One approach for science advocates may be to engage in a discussion about what constitutes a moral society. When we address issues of social and economic justice, both religious and non-religious folks can participate – while deemphasizing the importance of special creation and other literalist agenda items. Moderates are satisfied, because topics of concern to them are being addressed.
People seem to be taking note of the fact that we face many social justice issues today. For example, 27 million people in some form of slavery, a growing disparity between rich and poor, competition for oil and other resources with countries like China and India. Against our will, many of us are facing up to the fact that global warming is happening. In the face of the political, economic and ecological crises we face, it may be time to broaden our understanding of what it means to live a moral life.
Science advocates can further the cause of science by noting that our growing awareness of the interconnectedness of life and culture come from a revamping of how we view the world, in no small part due to the work of science. In fact, we need to directly challenge the notion that a conservative religious agenda, with its narrow focus on personal morality, is an adequate moral and ethical foundation for the modern world.
This need not be confrontational - everyone can be invited to discuss issues of justice and the defense of the weak - strong themes throughout the Bible, for example. Rather than lose moderates to the "Big Tent" of ID, why not invite them to a "big tent" of social and economic justice?
A moral culture can only be built on the Bible
The Bible is only authoritative if taken literally
Therefore, to have a moral culture, the Bible must be taken literally
This logic has a lot of traction with non-literalists, who want a safe culture in which to live and raise their kids. The world is in fact worrisome, and free-market capitalism has not delivered the promised happy and abundant society.
Science is portrayed as insisting that the Bible cannot be taken literally, which turns out to be seen as an attack on attempts to build a moral society. This puts science on the side of the bad guys. That science is correct in its rejection of literalists’ claims is no defense.
"No wonder society is sick," conservatives say, "if science is allowed to tear down the only foundation for ethical behavior."
You might notice that science is only peripheral to this issue – and to argue for strong science without addressing the assumptions about what is required to have a moral society is to be relegated to the less-interesting part of the discussion.
One approach for science advocates may be to engage in a discussion about what constitutes a moral society. When we address issues of social and economic justice, both religious and non-religious folks can participate – while deemphasizing the importance of special creation and other literalist agenda items. Moderates are satisfied, because topics of concern to them are being addressed.
People seem to be taking note of the fact that we face many social justice issues today. For example, 27 million people in some form of slavery, a growing disparity between rich and poor, competition for oil and other resources with countries like China and India. Against our will, many of us are facing up to the fact that global warming is happening. In the face of the political, economic and ecological crises we face, it may be time to broaden our understanding of what it means to live a moral life.
Science advocates can further the cause of science by noting that our growing awareness of the interconnectedness of life and culture come from a revamping of how we view the world, in no small part due to the work of science. In fact, we need to directly challenge the notion that a conservative religious agenda, with its narrow focus on personal morality, is an adequate moral and ethical foundation for the modern world.
This need not be confrontational - everyone can be invited to discuss issues of justice and the defense of the weak - strong themes throughout the Bible, for example. Rather than lose moderates to the "Big Tent" of ID, why not invite them to a "big tent" of social and economic justice?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Science in Conflict with Religion?
Science is misunderstood primarily because of preconceptions about how the world is (or must be) – that is, we already know what the world "must be" like, and don’t want to yield our preconceptions to the empirical results of the scientific process.
One source of misconception is the certainty that the world is influenced by the supernatural (that is, by some agency with no knowable method of action). This is not to say that God does not exist - just that God seems to use the mechanisms of the natural world to accompish his purposes.
While it is possible to say that, in principle, science and relgion are not in conflict, most science is in conflict with that part of any religion that involves magical or supernatural action (again, action without scientifically observable mechanisms). So, for example, a young earth, special creation and a global flood (but also Native Americans as descended from the "lost" tribe of Israel and countless other incorrect beliefs about the natural world).
The reason that ID-ists distance themselves from mechanisms is because of this conflict. Science describes a world in which identifiable (measurable, repeatable) mechanisms exist for all actions observed in the natural world. Most religions explicitly defend god's prerogative to act without regard to natural mechanisms.
There are two ways out of this dilemma. First, you can deny science. Say that there is scientific evidence for things with no natural explanation (I say deny science, because so far, there is no such evidence). Alternatively, you can define religion to be some sort of vague impulse, statistically indistinguishable from natural causes. The first involves denying the plain facts, the second involves making faith irrelevant (except as a personal mental model - and construing religion as such strips it of much of its appeal and power).
There are likewise a couple of reasons to deny that religion and science conflict - first is to avoid the complete rejection of science by those folks who do think that the supernatural exists, but who have not really looked into it rigorously. Second, because of the recognition that, for all the anti-social things religion creates, it also provides a cohesive social order and sense of meaning that seems fairly impervious to any attempt to stamp it out.
One source of misconception is the certainty that the world is influenced by the supernatural (that is, by some agency with no knowable method of action). This is not to say that God does not exist - just that God seems to use the mechanisms of the natural world to accompish his purposes.
While it is possible to say that, in principle, science and relgion are not in conflict, most science is in conflict with that part of any religion that involves magical or supernatural action (again, action without scientifically observable mechanisms). So, for example, a young earth, special creation and a global flood (but also Native Americans as descended from the "lost" tribe of Israel and countless other incorrect beliefs about the natural world).
The reason that ID-ists distance themselves from mechanisms is because of this conflict. Science describes a world in which identifiable (measurable, repeatable) mechanisms exist for all actions observed in the natural world. Most religions explicitly defend god's prerogative to act without regard to natural mechanisms.
There are two ways out of this dilemma. First, you can deny science. Say that there is scientific evidence for things with no natural explanation (I say deny science, because so far, there is no such evidence). Alternatively, you can define religion to be some sort of vague impulse, statistically indistinguishable from natural causes. The first involves denying the plain facts, the second involves making faith irrelevant (except as a personal mental model - and construing religion as such strips it of much of its appeal and power).
There are likewise a couple of reasons to deny that religion and science conflict - first is to avoid the complete rejection of science by those folks who do think that the supernatural exists, but who have not really looked into it rigorously. Second, because of the recognition that, for all the anti-social things religion creates, it also provides a cohesive social order and sense of meaning that seems fairly impervious to any attempt to stamp it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
