I think much of the frustration in the dialouge betwen conservative Christians and people who believe in science comes from the scientists' belief that these theories have been founded, not only on good objective evidence, but much of it on overwhelming objective evidence. So much so that it is totally reasonable to expect the other, less well supported ideas to accumulate a similarly overwhelming degree of proof.
Yet those in the YEC camp seem unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads. And not just remain unconvinced, but call the ToE a fairy tale, or impossible. This adherence to an a priori belief, incapable of refutation, makes reasoned argument difficult.
You ask, does science contain truth. I think of the discoveries of science as the end product of truth. No matter how we got here, here we are. No matter how we got here, we share DNA with primitive single-celled creatures. We share the inability to make vitiman C with those animals we have descended from, while many of those we did not descend from can synthesise C. These are facts. What they mean, and how that story unfolded is becoming more clear. As this happens, the kind of role God played in this process is more precisely understood, because we are eliminating things that God did not do. For example, God did not create the world 6,000 years ago, and God did not create each species more-or-less in their present form.
So here is the debate. These facts ar not in dispuit, except by those who have a religious need for them to be true. Since they have to be true for YECs, discussion and proof of facts are very difficult. Introducing the kind of special pleading carried out by folks attempting to proove YEC is not, and never will be, science.
Not that there isn't a rich and fruitful dialouge to be had between faith and science. Science is revealing a world of head-scratching wonder, which leads many materialists to wonder if there isn't something more. Many people of faith follow the unfolding drama of scientific discovery with awe, wonder and worship. I certainly find my faith deepened, challenged, and even sometimes corrected as I follow after scientists who are uncovering the How of creation.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Is ID a Myth?
Prof. Mirecki from KU recently stated that ID was a myth. This has caused a bit of an uproar, with Dr. Mirecki being branded a "Fred Phelps" for his bigoted view of the Christian religion.
Religious beliefs have been discussed as myths for years in religious studies programs throughout the US. Schools of religion tend to teach religion as an academic subject, not as an Truth. That is, the content of the faith constitutes their myths- stories of how things came to be, and why things are as they are.
When Mirecki says what he did, he is stating that ID belongs in his discipline, not in the discipline of science. At the very least, it belongs in his discipline, because it is a self-consciously religious (even Christian) subject. What is more, it is being promoted by Christian groups like IDEA precisely because it furthers their religious agenda.
It certainly does not make him Fred Phelps. Mirecki claimed something that is true - ID is a type of creationism, which is a core part of most mythologies. In the terminology of his profession, it is a myth. That he also believes it to be untrue is his right (could any professor of religion believe everything about every religion they teach?) - that he believes it is not science puts him in the company of his peers in the science department. None of this makes him a bigot.
Consider the creationists' noting that "Evolution is only a theory." For people not familiar with the use of the term in science circles, mistaking the word "theory" for the popular cognate "guess" is understandable. For otherwise educated people to make this mistake is bewildering - and for them to perpetuate the misunderstanding once it is pointed out is demagoguery.
While the faithful of any religion do not like an academic treating the truths of their faith as subjects of critical scrutiny, this is what the academic discipline is about. To make a big fuss about this is spreading a deliberate misunderstanding, which is a contemptible activity, to my way of thinking - far worse than a university professor not believing in ID.
Religious beliefs have been discussed as myths for years in religious studies programs throughout the US. Schools of religion tend to teach religion as an academic subject, not as an Truth. That is, the content of the faith constitutes their myths- stories of how things came to be, and why things are as they are.
When Mirecki says what he did, he is stating that ID belongs in his discipline, not in the discipline of science. At the very least, it belongs in his discipline, because it is a self-consciously religious (even Christian) subject. What is more, it is being promoted by Christian groups like IDEA precisely because it furthers their religious agenda.
It certainly does not make him Fred Phelps. Mirecki claimed something that is true - ID is a type of creationism, which is a core part of most mythologies. In the terminology of his profession, it is a myth. That he also believes it to be untrue is his right (could any professor of religion believe everything about every religion they teach?) - that he believes it is not science puts him in the company of his peers in the science department. None of this makes him a bigot.
Consider the creationists' noting that "Evolution is only a theory." For people not familiar with the use of the term in science circles, mistaking the word "theory" for the popular cognate "guess" is understandable. For otherwise educated people to make this mistake is bewildering - and for them to perpetuate the misunderstanding once it is pointed out is demagoguery.
While the faithful of any religion do not like an academic treating the truths of their faith as subjects of critical scrutiny, this is what the academic discipline is about. To make a big fuss about this is spreading a deliberate misunderstanding, which is a contemptible activity, to my way of thinking - far worse than a university professor not believing in ID.
And What About Darwin?
Darwin was a human, working in an age of relative ignorance, and his writing represents an incremental advance toward understanding that has been improved upon over time. What is undeniable is that his approach won out, not because it was a piece of revealed truth, perfect in every word, from a person of perfect understanding and intellect, but because his ideas were fruitful. Others tried hard to advance different approches- they were not censored by an intellectual establishment, but fell aside when the evidence did not support them. Darwin is considered great in retrospect- because his ideas worked, and he was able to see (however partially) when many of those around him did not. His name is given to the theory because he was an early articulator, not because he wrote an evolutionist's bible, or because he is the world's greatest authority. He lit a lamp (though not him only), by which others continued the journey.
Now creationists are forced to revisionist history, trying to invent atheist cabals and satanic plots in order to discredit the output of hundreds of years of science and the work of tens of thousands of people (many of them Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Moslem etc.). The world is as it is. It is old, life evolved, the universe is unimaginably vast. Did God make all this? We can't tell, what does your heart say? If you experience some Thou speaking to you, then you need to be willing to wrestle with what God has done in creation - (including evolution). Unless you worship a trixter god, who has made the world an illusion to test the faithful, of course. But then, if the world is an illusion, why discuss science at all?
Now creationists are forced to revisionist history, trying to invent atheist cabals and satanic plots in order to discredit the output of hundreds of years of science and the work of tens of thousands of people (many of them Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Moslem etc.). The world is as it is. It is old, life evolved, the universe is unimaginably vast. Did God make all this? We can't tell, what does your heart say? If you experience some Thou speaking to you, then you need to be willing to wrestle with what God has done in creation - (including evolution). Unless you worship a trixter god, who has made the world an illusion to test the faithful, of course. But then, if the world is an illusion, why discuss science at all?
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Save us From True Believers
True believers are certain that they understand the bible and read it correctly - and believe it to be authoritative over matters both spiritual and natural. They have a simple and honest faith, reflecting the New Testament. Eveyone else who is religious are the lukewarm, who will be spit out of Jesus' mouth (Rev 3:16).
Then there are the scientists, who do not recognize the authority of the bible to say anything at all about the natural world.
There is no common ground here. The founding fathers lived in memory of Puritan pastors banned from coming anywhere near their parishes, protestant versus catholic pogroms, and all sorts of bitter contest between rival factions, each claiming to have the ONE TRUE FAITH. You would think that this bloody and shameful history would at leach teach believers humility - but it does not seem to be working.
My hope is that the constitution will continue to defend us from true believers.
Then there are the scientists, who do not recognize the authority of the bible to say anything at all about the natural world.
There is no common ground here. The founding fathers lived in memory of Puritan pastors banned from coming anywhere near their parishes, protestant versus catholic pogroms, and all sorts of bitter contest between rival factions, each claiming to have the ONE TRUE FAITH. You would think that this bloody and shameful history would at leach teach believers humility - but it does not seem to be working.
My hope is that the constitution will continue to defend us from true believers.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Does the supernatural exist?
Consider that most supernatural events in the Bible have explanations - causes - associated with them. For example, God causes the sun to stand still (Joshua 10:12), to allow the Israelites more time to defeat their enemies. Consider that these explanations were seen as perfectly reasonable within the understanding of physics and cosmology of the day. Gods and other supernatural beings were seen as being able to manipulate the world - to exert force- just on a scale and to an effect not available to mortals. The concept of supernatural precedes naturalism - it is a later gloss to view the supernatural as a violation of natural laws. The gods acted naturally to the pre-scientific mind, just more potently.
As such, I propose that a better definition for the supernatural is simply those things done directly by God. This acknowledges the unexceptional admission that most stuff “just happens,” but sometimes God intervenes directly in the world. It is this direct action, and not the mechanism, that defines supernaturalism.
The mind exposed to the scientific method (however superficially) expects to find "real world" evidence of God's activities. Many Christians, for example, regularly attest to concrete experiences of God's activity - the activity of the supernatural - in their lives. For that matter, large numbers of people see ghosts, experience physic effects, contact the dead, receive spiritual, emotional and physical healing, experience strange coincidences, act on unexplained urges that result in them taking actions that save themselves and others from harm - in short, it is nature of the experience, not the scientist’s understanding of its causation, that marks something as supernatural in most folks eyes.
The recent focus on studies that investigate intercessory prayer, and the explorations of Intelligent Design, are examples of this process of looking for the fingerprint of God in the accumulated experience of daily living. If you believe in a God who acts in the world, you expect (insist?) on finding this proof – how could it be otherwise? If you believe in a God who is somewhat more subtle, you may have lowered expectations for the result of these investigations.
Today’s difficulty is that we don’t understand the mechanism of many of the miracles. For example, in Joshua 10:12, both the sun and moon stand still – which I take to mean that the earth was halted in its rotation. Here is a particularly interesting case study for literalism, by the way, because if the sun was stopped in its movement through space (relative to the earth?) would it have made any difference to the length of the day? In any event, we don’t know how to stop the earth’s rotation, what with all the problems that that would entail. But that does not mean that God could not have done it. My objection to the traditional notion of supernaturalism is that it does not imply that we don’t understand the mechanism, but that there could have been no (natural) mechanism (with the caveat that, since supernaturalism = not following any natural process, the religious can imagine anything they want happened).
When most religious folks I know talk about the activity of the supernatural, they don’t speak of non-natural mechanisms; they speak of concrete manifestations of the power of God in the world.
But the question is, “Does the supernatural exist?” My personal response is that if it does, it will leave evidence. I recognize that it is not enough to show that people of a particular religion act, in aggregate, in a way that demonstrates Devine intervention, or that something occurred (a healing, for example) that confounds medical experts. You will also have to show that there are no “natural” explanations. This is made even more difficult by the fact that ruling out all known causes does not rule out the possibility that some natural cause exists that has not yet been identified. In fact, this is the “God in the gaps” approach to the supernatural – find something that cannot be explained, and attribute it to God’s direct intervention.
Many people of faith have accepted this working definition of the supernatural, and believe that sufficient evidence has been provided to convince them of God’s intervention in “ordinary” life. Personally, I have experienced many things that I attribute to the supernatural – so I say it exists. Can I prove it? Well, I am fairly perplexed that when I look at broad measures of Christian behavior, I fail to see the significant differences I expect.
As such, I propose that a better definition for the supernatural is simply those things done directly by God. This acknowledges the unexceptional admission that most stuff “just happens,” but sometimes God intervenes directly in the world. It is this direct action, and not the mechanism, that defines supernaturalism.
The mind exposed to the scientific method (however superficially) expects to find "real world" evidence of God's activities. Many Christians, for example, regularly attest to concrete experiences of God's activity - the activity of the supernatural - in their lives. For that matter, large numbers of people see ghosts, experience physic effects, contact the dead, receive spiritual, emotional and physical healing, experience strange coincidences, act on unexplained urges that result in them taking actions that save themselves and others from harm - in short, it is nature of the experience, not the scientist’s understanding of its causation, that marks something as supernatural in most folks eyes.
The recent focus on studies that investigate intercessory prayer, and the explorations of Intelligent Design, are examples of this process of looking for the fingerprint of God in the accumulated experience of daily living. If you believe in a God who acts in the world, you expect (insist?) on finding this proof – how could it be otherwise? If you believe in a God who is somewhat more subtle, you may have lowered expectations for the result of these investigations.
Today’s difficulty is that we don’t understand the mechanism of many of the miracles. For example, in Joshua 10:12, both the sun and moon stand still – which I take to mean that the earth was halted in its rotation. Here is a particularly interesting case study for literalism, by the way, because if the sun was stopped in its movement through space (relative to the earth?) would it have made any difference to the length of the day? In any event, we don’t know how to stop the earth’s rotation, what with all the problems that that would entail. But that does not mean that God could not have done it. My objection to the traditional notion of supernaturalism is that it does not imply that we don’t understand the mechanism, but that there could have been no (natural) mechanism (with the caveat that, since supernaturalism = not following any natural process, the religious can imagine anything they want happened).
When most religious folks I know talk about the activity of the supernatural, they don’t speak of non-natural mechanisms; they speak of concrete manifestations of the power of God in the world.
But the question is, “Does the supernatural exist?” My personal response is that if it does, it will leave evidence. I recognize that it is not enough to show that people of a particular religion act, in aggregate, in a way that demonstrates Devine intervention, or that something occurred (a healing, for example) that confounds medical experts. You will also have to show that there are no “natural” explanations. This is made even more difficult by the fact that ruling out all known causes does not rule out the possibility that some natural cause exists that has not yet been identified. In fact, this is the “God in the gaps” approach to the supernatural – find something that cannot be explained, and attribute it to God’s direct intervention.
Many people of faith have accepted this working definition of the supernatural, and believe that sufficient evidence has been provided to convince them of God’s intervention in “ordinary” life. Personally, I have experienced many things that I attribute to the supernatural – so I say it exists. Can I prove it? Well, I am fairly perplexed that when I look at broad measures of Christian behavior, I fail to see the significant differences I expect.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Kansas Board of Education Vote
Of course there are people who view science as giving them an intellectual justification for rejecting religion. In the same way, many people find that they must distance themselves from science in order to keep hold of their faith. Then there are some who try to keep hold of both. What is very clear is that this involves some compromise.
While some people insist they hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible (for example), they do in fact hold a much more liberal view than the original hearers. Obvious examples for conservative Christians are the fact that the earth circles the sun, the stars are not fixed in the sky, that snow is not stored in storehouses, and that creatures are not spontaneously generated from the earth (as Genesis 1 implies, and as was widely held until recently).
Science will from time-to-time demonstrate facts that contradict aspects of one religion or another. The constitution does not protect religion from such "attacks," nor should it. What is more normal, and what is happening here, is that science is being attacked by religion, and truth is being suppressed in order to support the YEC view of Genesis. This is also fine (though depressing), just not in the public education system.
One thing hasn't changed - some people think God is found in the gaps of our understanding about the natural world. I for one tire of the constant retreat to just beyond the frontiers of science, where my co-religionists throw taunts - "You'll never figure this one out!" Oh. "I meant this - you'll never figure this out!" Oh...
My own personal frustration with this anti-science position is that it sacrifices science to defend creationism.
Never mind that it encourages superstition and bigotry (because that is what is left when you remove the truth).
Never mind that it opens the door to astrology, para-psychology and a host of other superstitious errors demanding equal time on exactly the same basis as creationism is being ushered in.
Never mind that it teaches students that truth is whatever you want it to be - the exact mind state desired by racists and demagogues of all stripes.
Never mind that it waters down science by introducing all sorts of special pleading- a real turn-off for the few folks left who want to get on with it.
Never mind that it forces us to pretend that we know less than we do, and pretend that we seriously consider ideologically-motivated fantasy and reasoning from "first principles" as equal to the results of scientific discovery.
After all the special pleading, apologetics, distortions, lies and mis-information, it is truth that will have suffered, kids' education that will have suffered- and only to promote a YEC-view of Genesis. This is what is frustrating about the KBE decision.
For what it is worth, as the election after the last KBE decision like this showed, and as the recent vote in Dover emphasized, this kind of nonsense does not represent the will of the people. It represents how special interest groups can "storm the gates" and pack the board. When the general population wakes up, they rectify the situation. I'll be looking for ways to help rectify this come the next election.
While some people insist they hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible (for example), they do in fact hold a much more liberal view than the original hearers. Obvious examples for conservative Christians are the fact that the earth circles the sun, the stars are not fixed in the sky, that snow is not stored in storehouses, and that creatures are not spontaneously generated from the earth (as Genesis 1 implies, and as was widely held until recently).
Science will from time-to-time demonstrate facts that contradict aspects of one religion or another. The constitution does not protect religion from such "attacks," nor should it. What is more normal, and what is happening here, is that science is being attacked by religion, and truth is being suppressed in order to support the YEC view of Genesis. This is also fine (though depressing), just not in the public education system.
One thing hasn't changed - some people think God is found in the gaps of our understanding about the natural world. I for one tire of the constant retreat to just beyond the frontiers of science, where my co-religionists throw taunts - "You'll never figure this one out!" Oh. "I meant this - you'll never figure this out!" Oh...
My own personal frustration with this anti-science position is that it sacrifices science to defend creationism.
Never mind that it encourages superstition and bigotry (because that is what is left when you remove the truth).
Never mind that it opens the door to astrology, para-psychology and a host of other superstitious errors demanding equal time on exactly the same basis as creationism is being ushered in.
Never mind that it teaches students that truth is whatever you want it to be - the exact mind state desired by racists and demagogues of all stripes.
Never mind that it waters down science by introducing all sorts of special pleading- a real turn-off for the few folks left who want to get on with it.
Never mind that it forces us to pretend that we know less than we do, and pretend that we seriously consider ideologically-motivated fantasy and reasoning from "first principles" as equal to the results of scientific discovery.
After all the special pleading, apologetics, distortions, lies and mis-information, it is truth that will have suffered, kids' education that will have suffered- and only to promote a YEC-view of Genesis. This is what is frustrating about the KBE decision.
For what it is worth, as the election after the last KBE decision like this showed, and as the recent vote in Dover emphasized, this kind of nonsense does not represent the will of the people. It represents how special interest groups can "storm the gates" and pack the board. When the general population wakes up, they rectify the situation. I'll be looking for ways to help rectify this come the next election.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Why Does It Matter if the Bible is True?
The Bible bases its authority on a claim to be the story of God interacting with people. In a straightforward way, it makes unambiguous claims about people, places and specific occurrences. It uses these events to explain the nature of God, people and the purpose and direction of history. For example, the book of Mark contains a list of people who are ancestors of Joseph, Mary's husband, the mother of Jesus. Many of these people figure in the stories found in the books of Genesis through Chronicles, and in the prophetic books. The Bible treats these events as a demonstration of the nature of both God and people. If they did not happen, then the lessons derived from them lose authority. For example, the exile was God's response to a faithless Israel. If their captivity in Babylon had nothing to do with the quality of their interaction with God, then that changes our understanding of who God is and what he does (and is able to do). You may claim that the story is just as compelling even if it did not happen, and I will say that it is the difference between reading about having a gun pulled on you, and staring down the barrel of a gun pointed at you (I've done both, and for me at least, it is very different).
There is an alternative basis for authority- that many people have found the Bible meaningful, useful, and helpful even. This puts it on a level with a book like the Tao Te Ching (which claims no divinity for its authorship). All that is needed, perhaps, is some cultural insight to better understand what the author had in mind- no historicity is needed. Perhaps this is what is meant by the opening post in this thread. I will grant that any philosophy or religion can be admired and adhered to on this level, and it may even be viewed as in some way better or higher or finer that a philosophy that is rooted in the day-to-day. Again, I suggest it is like reading about being in love and being in love. I can understand how some people might prefer reading about it, after having been through it, but I sure vote for the real thing.
The Bible represents itself as an accurate record of the interaction of the Creator and his creation, from the beginning of time, to the end of time. If your accept that claim, you read it one way. If you reject that claim, you read it another way (or ways)- or, much more likely, just don't read it at all. If the question is, "Can the Bible be useful, even though it is largely fiction?" the answer is sure. If the question is, "Can you accept the Bible as an authoritative guide to the nature of God, people, and the purpose of history, even though many of its claims are false?" the answer probably should be no.
For many people, what gives them confidence in the Bible is that it is rooted in the facts of history. According to the Bible, God did break into history, influence the Pharaoh, the heads of the Babylonian and Persian empire, accurately describe the future, etc. In Isaiah, God is quoted as saying "My words do not come back to me empty, but accomplish the purpose for which they were sent." God is portrayed as an actor in history, not just an influencer of the private thoughts of people. It is these dry facts that demonstrate that this is God's nature. Eliminate the facts, and the very nature of God is changed. You may think this is for the better, others for the worse- but it does make a difference.
There is an alternative basis for authority- that many people have found the Bible meaningful, useful, and helpful even. This puts it on a level with a book like the Tao Te Ching (which claims no divinity for its authorship). All that is needed, perhaps, is some cultural insight to better understand what the author had in mind- no historicity is needed. Perhaps this is what is meant by the opening post in this thread. I will grant that any philosophy or religion can be admired and adhered to on this level, and it may even be viewed as in some way better or higher or finer that a philosophy that is rooted in the day-to-day. Again, I suggest it is like reading about being in love and being in love. I can understand how some people might prefer reading about it, after having been through it, but I sure vote for the real thing.
The Bible represents itself as an accurate record of the interaction of the Creator and his creation, from the beginning of time, to the end of time. If your accept that claim, you read it one way. If you reject that claim, you read it another way (or ways)- or, much more likely, just don't read it at all. If the question is, "Can the Bible be useful, even though it is largely fiction?" the answer is sure. If the question is, "Can you accept the Bible as an authoritative guide to the nature of God, people, and the purpose of history, even though many of its claims are false?" the answer probably should be no.
For many people, what gives them confidence in the Bible is that it is rooted in the facts of history. According to the Bible, God did break into history, influence the Pharaoh, the heads of the Babylonian and Persian empire, accurately describe the future, etc. In Isaiah, God is quoted as saying "My words do not come back to me empty, but accomplish the purpose for which they were sent." God is portrayed as an actor in history, not just an influencer of the private thoughts of people. It is these dry facts that demonstrate that this is God's nature. Eliminate the facts, and the very nature of God is changed. You may think this is for the better, others for the worse- but it does make a difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
