Login Here
Folks are sometimes amazed at me and my wife. I've got a Ph.D. in religion, and she has one in microbiology. "But . . . but . . . but how is that possible?" Pictures of the Scopes trial fly through their minds, or Bible-thumpers taking over school boards to put "creationism" or "intelligent design" into science classrooms. One must triumph over the other, after all. The fundies fight for religion, the faithless scientists fight for science, and ne'er the twain shall meet. That is a picture of how religion and science intersect, but it is woefully - and thankfully! - incomplete.
It's only recently that science and religion have come to be seen as polar opposites. In fact, some of the most interesting scientists in history were theologians as well. (Or should I say that some of the most interesting theologians were also scientists?) Just as a person of faith who is filled with a passion for justice might become a lawyer, and a person of faith with a passion for healing might become a doctor, so a person of faith with curiousity for the beauty and mystery of creation might become a scientist. "Look at all these marvels," she or he might say, filled with faith and wonder and awe. A scientist with faith then applies his or her intellect and skills to the world, seeking to discover new and interesting things about it. Religion for scientists like this becomes the inspiration for their work, not an impediment to it.
Back in college, I studied math and economics, including the work of Thomas Bayes. He developed a number of powerful insights into probability theory, which became critical for actuaries, statisticians, and even the programmers of Google! Later I discovered that he was an English clergyman, and a Fellow of the Royal Society in mathematics. His mathematical work most likely came about because Bayes took his mathematical training and used it to examine the then-current religious questions of gambling and insurance. (Yes, insurance was once a question of faith: Can a good, God-fearing person purchase insurance, or is that a sign that one does not trust in God?) Truly, Bayes was a clerical scientist, or a scientific cleric.
The existence of religiously motivated scientists is generally not acknowledged, especially in TheoCon circles, except for the "special case" of the folks pushing "intelligent design" as a religious alternative to secular evolution. But if you want to open a discussion of evolution or global warming, for example, recognizing a kind of healthy relationship between religion and science is a necesary and very helpful first step.
The National Geographic recently took on both these topics with cover stories in the space of four months. In September 2004, they published a three part series on global warming, looking closely at geological changes, ecological changes, and the probable causes of these changes, presenting observations and evidence while using the best current theories to draw appropriate conclusions. In November 2004, they took on evolution, with an issue whose cover boldly asked "Was Darwin Wrong?"
The article's answer to the question on the cover was a firm "no." This pits the NG against the Creationists who lean on but one of the various scriptural stories of creation, claiming it as the text that describes the process of creation - and the picture isn't evolution. In Genesis 1, God speaks and calls forth the world and everything in it in the space of six days, with humanity created on the last day.
What the Creationists miss in making their claim is the picture of God this story portrays. That's why the stories of creation are there, after all. The Hebrew scriptures have other stories, too, which paint different pictures of God and creation, pointing primarily not to the mechanics of the event but to the Creator behind it and our relationship to that creator. In Genesis 2, in contrast to the story above with its distant, exalted, and powerful creator, here we see God bending down to earth, creating a man from the mud, and blowing life into him. Then God creates a garden for the man to live in, as well as a world of creatures for companionship. As nice as they are, though, something's missing for the man, and so God causes a deep sleep to come over him. While the man sleeps, God removes a rib from the man and creates something new. "Finally!" says the man. This is not a dog or a cat, not a hippo or a camel, but another human being - a partner! It's a creation story that emphasizes a loving creator who cares deeply for the people God created, who values human community, and who walks the earth and is not distant from it as in Genesis 1. In Psalm 104, the Psalmist paints a picture of God at creation that could have been inspired by the membership roster of the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce. God planted trees like a landscaper, laid the foundations of the earth like a builder, covered the heavens with light like a tailor spreads cloth, and made the giant crocodile (Leviathan) just for the fun of it. The storyteller of the book of Job does much the same thing in chapters 38-42, using human occupations like farmer, midwife, animal trainer, father, mother, and more to describe God at work.
In his editor's column on the inside of that November 2004 issue, Bill Allen wrote:
Our magazine aims to explore the world, often by highlighting scientific concepts such as evolution. Is this approach necessarily at odds with faith, which lies beyond the realm of scientific proof? No. Just as religion did not disappear after Galileo demonstrated that the Earth is not at the center of the solar system, evolution does not exclude God from our origins, the "mystery of mysteries" - a 19th-century astronomer's description borrowed by Darwin himself.
Key to having conversations that deal with evolution is trying to get the person on the fundamentalist side of things to realize that evolution is not necessarily an attack on their faith or their God. It does attack their way of literally reading selective parts of scripture, but not their faith. That's a nuanced distinction, but without it there is no hope of conversation at all.
Bill Allen is a brave man, and he and his staff recognized that distinction well. I know nothing of their personal religious beliefs, but they were able to use stunning images and carefully crafted prose to translate the precise and technical language of science, making it more easily understood by non-scientists, including people of faith. These four articles, especially the evolution piece, demonstrate respect for both the scientist and non-scientist alike, as well as the religious and non-religious, and show how the conversation between science and religion can indeed take place, to the benefit of all.
But it's not easy, as we saw with the whole very public debacle around Terri Schaivo, and as it is played out more privately in ordinary ICUs and nursing facilities each and every day. A religious person might ask, Is it playing God to turn off a venilator? Is it playing God to use one? And who gets to decide? A scientist might similarly ask, Is it medically possible and useful to use a ventilator? Does it assist the patient to continue living? Does it merely prevent the body from dying? And who gets to decide? At the other end of life, the same scientific and religious questions arise, when the discussion turns to in vitro fertilization, contraception and birth control, and similar topics. Is it playing God to assist in creating life? Is it playing God to refrain from creating life? And who gets to decide? Is it medically possible and useful to create a pregnancy? Is it medically possible and useful to terminate one? And who gets to decide? All these questions are closely related, though some are phrased more in the language of science and others use the language of religion.
Shortly before the 1978 election of Albino Luciani as Pope John Paul I, the first test tube baby was born in England. In an interview with a Roman newspaper, Luciani noted that while technology like this can be used for evil purposes, so too it can be used for good. "I, too, send my best wishes to the baby. As for her parents, . . . if they acted with good intentions and in good faith, they may even have great merit before God for what they have decided and asked the doctors to do." Wise words, measured and full of humility, from a man who died too soon.
In March 2005, National Geographic printed some letters that the global warming and evolution issues generated. My favorite came from Toby Pitts, who wrote:
I am not surprised that nearly half of all Americans believe "God alone, and not evolution, produced humans." When I look at my three beautiful children, it is hard to believe they are the end result of evolving Eocene pond scum. My father-in-law, on the other hand, may be just the evidence you've been looking for.
Humor can be a great leveler, to keep all of us from taking ourselves too seriously (and for the religious among us, one might say it keeps us from trying to take the place of God). Doonesbury this past Sunday brought much laughter to my home, as evolution and religion take on very personal, immediate importance for the gentleman visiting his doctor . . . (If God could laugh at the divine creation of the crocodile, surely we can laugh at the more human creative work of Garry Trudeau.)
So, how do you talk religion and science with those of a more TheoCon mindset?
(One request: let's hold off on discussing religion, homosexuality and marriage on this thread. I know they are in the news lately, and there are some deeply religious and scientific aspects to the discussion, but they deserve a thread all their own. If I promise to post one, can you all hold back on that? Thanks!)
Share This 
Spotlight
Roots, again!!!
Kesher at 2 — if you have a substantive comment to make, please do so. But do not use the comments section to blogwhore. Thanks.
fitz
Peterr — thanks so much for such a thoughtful post. This is truly a topic that needs so much more discussion — and so much more understanding of real respect and understanding versus an attempt at manipulation and obfuscation. Really appreciate you doing this post!
Thanks, Peterr. Reading about string theory, or looking at photographs of distant galaxies, or - yes - reading one of DarkSyde’s diaries at dKos about the evolutionary process - can be an awe-inspiring thing for me, not at all unlike the feelings I sometimes have in church. There is no (good) reason for faith and science to be hostile to one another.
Great Post Peterr
Thanks for the timely topic
Larry
Christy,
Thanks, but between the Joe ‘n Ned show last night and the Bush presser right now, something tells me the comments will be slow getting started here. Maybe the NSA let Bush know this thread was coming, and he quickly scheduled the press conference to distract attention from it.
(ducking back to the last thread. . .)
Peterr, a little OT, but I hope you won’t mind. Noon is coming up in the Eastern Time Zone, and Juan Cole has asked that each of us observe two minutes of silence @ 12:00 out of respect for the victims of last year’s 7/7 London bombings. I’ll be doing so myself here in the PDT later.
With that out of the way, thanks for an interesting post! I’ve gone the rounds (in a good way) with religious friends of mine about the question of free will and its role in God’s intrumentality. I don’t have any answers, but failing to care about this question leads down the slippery slope to Auchwitz. That’s nowhere I ever want to be, whether as inmate or captor.
Steven J Gould gave it his all, and was basically right, I think. Religion and science can easily co-exist, if science answers the “how?” and religion answers the “why?”
One way to approach religion and science is to tie them together as ways of explaining the mystery of the world as we apprehend it. Religion came first because the philosophical tools were available to the inquisitive mind long before the scientific tools were well defined/refined enough to approach the mystery.
How to get beyond the fixed notion that the scripture (of choice, since there is always plenty of scripture that categorically does not support the chosen notion) frames the discussion is the issue, and that takes patience, caring and the will to work at the resistance.
Tillich can be one answer: The religious impulse arises from the apprehension of the mystery. If you approach the mystery of God/spirit and try to leave the words of man out of it, it is possible to make headway. Baby steps, maybe, but headway none the less.
This is easier for me than, perhaps, an atheist. I am unchurched but I do believe in God (even though I am scientifically trained as an engineer).
Tommy Yum at 9 — I love that, and am going to use it.
Today’s Micheal Kinsley column on stem cell research: “Moral sincerity is not impressive if it depends on willful ignorance and indifference to logic.”
It seems to me that for many people, especially students of theology, intellectual sincerity results in a world view of increasing complexity, rather than easy, rote recitations touted by so-called moralists.
In the recent Pennsylvania school creationist case, the judge warned, be careful of making children choose between God and science. Kitzmiller v. Dover
I come from a family where religion and science happily live together. You can study the details of the universe with science and then stand in awe of how amazing it is.
It’s not necessary to believe the world is only 6,000 years old to be a religious person. I would venture to say that a MAJORITY of Americans believe in God -and- science.
So, how do you talk religion and science with those of a more TheoCon mindset?
One request: let’s hold off on discussing religion…
Nothing lke a preemptive stike designed to neuter discussion
That old rule, “Never discuss religion and politics in polite company” undoubtedly sprang from the desire to remain friends despite differing BS (Belief Systems).
cupholder -
I’m not trying to neuter a discussion, so to speak, but simply focus this one and let sex and religion and science have a full thread of its own.
Last winter, when one of the nearby school districts was under assault by the ID folks, I took a shot at thinking through in writing my own views on the matter. Amazingly enough, the local weekly paper published it unedited except for chopoping it up into many more paragraphs. FWIW you can find it at the link below.
http://tinyurl.com/on9db
Christy @11,
Not my idea, but use it all you want!
Esaund -
I liked the Kinsley piece also - link here.
My gap-filled reading of history tends to make me believe that the friction occurs when religion is used as a tool to maintain social stability (i.e., the status quo) rather than as the means to honor the Creator. When science adds to our knowledge, the folks who ritualized the now-outdated set of facts have nowhere to go intellectually, so other means have to be found to keep the flock together in one place.
It’s truly saddening to me that all of these battles that were fought through the Enlightenment have to be re-fought today.
Religion is for those that insist on prematurely filling the gaps. I find it interesting that scientists would abandon reason and take things on faith. For me, it’s one or the other. I’ll take facts and evidence, thanks.
Minnesotachuck @ 17
Gut sehr!Sehr Gut!This was a great post, Peterr - really just hits all the right points.
How I talk with people who are more on the Theocon side of the fence depends to a great deal on whether I think they are even interested in my point of view. I am always careful to assert that I respect everyone’s right to believe what they want, and expect that same respect in return.
Sometimes I tell the story that a colleague of mine told years ago. My colleague was Jewish, and her 6 year old daughter came home from the public school one day going on and on about Christmas. My friend patiently tried to explain some of the differences between Jewish and Christian beliefs, with many questions from her daughter. Finally, after going into one more explanation, her daughter paused for a minute, and finally said, “But, Mommy, what if they’re right?” To me, that pretty much sums up the importance of being open to all points of view.
I think Doonesbury summed it all up pretty well, too, in a recent cartoon that had a man in his doctor’s office, being told he had TB. The patient asks how the doctor will treat it, and the doctor asks whether the patient is a creationist. The patient responds that he is, and asks why the doctor wants to know. Doctor says he needs to know whether the patient wants him to treat the TB like they did before antibiotics, or as the strain of TB has mutated and evolved over time. “Evolved?” the patient asks? Doctor responds by saying that if patient wants the Noah’s Ark version, he’ll just give him streptomycin. When the patient asks what the newer drugs are like, the doctor responds that they are “intelligently designed.”
Gentle humor goes a long way to helping people understand that sometimes their adherence to a fixed position ignores a huge chunk of reality.
Peterr,
Have you read “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris?
Harris argues that science, which is based on empirical evidence, and religion, which is based on faith in the absence of evidence, are at odds and ultimately irreconcilable.
Here’s a link to the first ten pages of the book:
http://www.samharris.org/index.....apter-one/
Peterr,
“TheoCons” are absolutists; fundamentalists whose binary mode of thinking doesn’t admit the nuance of science. There’s no point in attempting a discussion of the role of science with these people.
They are vastly outnumbered by religious people of every stripe who happily accept scientific principles, inquiries and findings.
If you think it’s possible to go into, say, the Creationist Museum and reason with that crowd, you’re a better man than I.
peterr- thanks for another thought provoking post. o/t what are your perspectives on rabbi michael lerner and his book “the left hand of God”
Nice to see a post like this. Fact of the matter is, there is not all that much contradiction between scientists and so-called religious types or creationists. Philosophical history is wrought with mathematicians being very concerned over the belief in a “Higher Being”. One of my particular faves along these lines, is Rene Descartes, 16th. century French math, philosophy and science guy who is generally credited with founding analytic geometry, which is absolutely essential to the development of calculus. One of Descartes main objectives was, through his Ontological Argument, etc. to lay to rest the skeptics view on the non-existence of “something” which set “things” in motion. It has been said that a majority of scientists are in sympathy with the concept of “God”. If one tries to grapple with the idea of infinity, keeping in mind the concept of “limits”, then the predictibility of some sort of God seems not so far fetched. I think.
it is always most humorus reading or listening to someone trying to justify or quantify their faith and how it relates to reality.
Psychology shows how people find justification for anything. The idea that the two could be involved renders both ridiculous.
you might want to consider hiding one or the other from your mind, as it makes you look and sound absoluteley absurd
xyz @ 24
Haven’t read it, but folks have been saying that religion is dead for quite some time - see the Allen comment in NG above about Galileo.
From a fast glance at the link you sent, it seems to me that Harris could use a good course in biblical interpretation before asserting some of the things he does about how “everyone” reads the Bible.
In fact, biblical interpreters work much like secular scientists. When something is observed that does not square with the prevailing understanding of it, both begin to look for new avenues to explain the differences. That’s how science grows, and religious understandings as well.
Pictures of the Scopes trial fly through their minds
flying monkeys!
pete @ 26
I’m generally impressed with Lerner, though I haven’t read that book.
One of the most delightful discussions on how to talk about evolution occurred on Carl Zimmer’s site back in February. It starts when Randy Olson pens a short essay on what evolutionary biologists can learn from filmmakers. This led to a “vigorous” back and forth about the role of style and substance when talking science. Check it out:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2.....e.php#more
There is no way of reconciling the bible with anything for those who choose to read Genesis as a newspaper story written by God.
Their view, I think, is a result of fear. If they were to agree that Genesis is a collection of religious stories- not an eye witness account of history- they would be on a slippery slope- leading to religious chaos.
Of course the fact that the editors of Genesis put two contradictory accounts of creation side by side with no embarassment shows pretty clearly that it’s authors knew full well that they were not compiling history. This point is always lost on the zealots.
Descartes and the Ontological argument?
Actually that argument precedes Descartes by centuries- St. Anselm.
Peterr @ 22:
Danka Schoen! (blushing in embarrassment). Your piece was sehr gut as well. Since writing that I’ve filled in at least one of the many gaping holes in my cultural awareness, by reading the late Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. If I’d had that under my hat in January the piece would have emerged quite differently. Kuhn delves deeply into the fact that science education, unlike that of, say, literature, music, visual arts, etc., largely ignores the original sources of the work of scientists past whose paradigmatic bases have since been superseded. I think many of the points Kuhn made are important to the ID/creationism controversy.
Sorry. I’m one of the edjibicated knuckle draggers affiliated with the mindset of Carl Sagan (requiescat in pace). His PBS series “Cosmos” made very clear that all of the advances in scientific thought result from a rejection of theology. It was, is & will be a war & the theocons & neocons clearly recognize this. Dr. Sagan was a scholarly, genteel man who made nice while he firmly destroyed every vestige of religiosity in all the fields of thought that he presented in the series. I’m not like that. I’ll roll up my sleeves & drag you to the parking lot if any of that idiotic religious drivel comes out of your mouth. I’ve been called an intellectual bully by the dimwits who take their views of the Cosmos from one of those fairy tale books that are deemed sacred. Screw ‘em. Bu$hInc is correct about this: it’s a culture war.
Here’s an episode of Charlie Rose with James Watson and E.O. Wilson.
http://video.google.com/videop.....;q=charlie rose evolution&time=70000
Those two guys have made amazing break throughs and revelations in science/biology. But in that interview, they talk about scientists and God and they speak with such disdain and contempt where they make some pretty sweeping claims. Personally, I think both of them are stuck on themselves and need to get off their horses. Smart men, but arrogant, pompous asses.
I really only see targeting the science/religion as conflicting issues as a tool to enhance one’s agenda. It’s about sounds bites, constituents, money, and greed. Pope John Paul II was so on the money when it came to religion and science. I partially think that’s why he hung on as long as he did because he knew there would be a mess between the two after he was gone. (And a mess among other topics, but those are for that other thread Peterr mentioned)
OT– Silvio Berlusconi has to stand trial for fraud…
yay!
pheidole @ 32
Wow! What a great item. No time to read the lengthy back and forth in the comments there at the moment, but it looks interesting.
This issue came to a head with Copernicus-(and Galileo) and the church LOST- big time. Since then most catholic theologians have tried to keep their holy paws out of science. It’s mostly protestant primitives who are fighting these battles now.
Wise Christians learn not to hold their faith hostage to obviously mistaken views about scientific facts.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ao......htm#TIMES
It never hurts to read Einstein!
Walt at 36 — you are more than entitled to your opinion, and to argue your case on the merits. But please try to refrain from a rude tone. I’ve had to deal with more than enough rudeness today in prior threads and I’ve had just about enough of it. (That goes for everyone — play nice, folks.)
Peterr–
I shouldn’t be, but I’m astounded that people can’t grasp that a scientist and a minister could be happily married. I guess it shows the extent to which the fundamentlaists have hijacked the debate.
I have an academic interest in the Romantic period and am starting a research project on liberal clergy preaching and doing what we’d call social justice work on the liberal side of the equation, with the basic assumption that God created everyone with equal rights. Another example of a clergyman scientist besides Bayes would of course be Joseph Priestly, who was a minister and political activist in addition to being a chemist. Nerdy fact: did you know his house was burned down by a mob who opposed his support of the French revolution? The more things change…
Unlike science, religion is imbued with substance only to the extent that humans give it that substance. There really is nothing there on which to hang your hat, let alone an argument or a discussion. So how do you have a substantive discussion about a mythology that is taken seriously? Religions that were once fundamental to civilizations, that people fought and died for, have come and gone. The religions of today will eventually follow these into obscurity, and if mankind does not detroy itself first, will be a source of endless wonderment centuries from now, in the same way we look at Zeus or Isis. We can only agree to disagree because we have no equivalent of the scientific method to apply to religion. And until we do, it is all a moot point. I think religion would be hugely amusing if it weren’t so deadly to humanity’s progress and evolution. With any discussion that involves reigion, there is an elephant in the room, and unless people begin to acknowledge this elephant, we will undoubtedly destroy ourselves in the name of our ‘beliefs’ rather than bring about a better world based on what we know and will continue to discover.
rwcole…34
Respectfully, I would submit that Anselm’s thoughts on the ontology of God differ radically from the Descartes position.
For the folks want to catch this last Sunday’s Doonesbury cartoon.
Personally, all that I’ve read of science suggests that as Albert Einstein said, “God is in the details”. The very concept of “spooky action at a distance” or entanglement in terms of quantum physics suggests there is something more going on. Will science determine it’s merely a mechanical detail, or is this a sign of some other force or entity at work? Who knows? Perhaps we never will and are not meant to as humans — and that’s okay with me, but I’ll be just as happy to keep looking.
Stephen Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” was relevatory to me as well. What if everything we know and understand around us, here and across the cosmos, is really part of one large self-computing system…? Can any single cell in our body understand and comprehend the magnitude of the body within which it resides? Can we ever understand and grasp the entirety of the system or entity in which we are a part? What if the very process of trying to compute that answer is as computationally challenging as constructing the system itself?
In other words, what if God is computationally irreducible?
I think I’ll hedge my bets.
I hesitate to post this, for it appears to be quite hostile to religion, and that is not my intent. But it is “on topic”; today’s front page article at salon.com:
rwcole @ 40
What Copernicus and Galileo taught most catholic theologians is to leave the mathematics to the mathematicians, including the catholic ones. These clergy - and their protestant colleagues - learned a bit more respect for the intellectual gifts of the laity.
Once upon a time, the clergy were among the most educated in society. Thankfully for everyone, the church included, that is no longer the case. The sooner clergy of all stripes give up a hierarchical view of themselves at the top of the intellectual pyramid, the sooner this pseudo-debate will disappear.
Oklahoma-
Yes- I agree. I have never heard Descarte’s position described as an “Ontological Argument”.
tommy yum @9 Steven J Gould gave it his all, and was basically right, I think. Religion and science can easily co-exist, if science answers the “how?” and religion answers the “why?”
Well, that might work if there were clear guidelines and general agreement about which questions should be answered by evidence/rationality/experiment and which questions should be approached through faith. Unfortunately, there are no rules here, and so nothing to stop zealots of all stripes from crossing some ill-defined (impossible to draw?) line.
The inevitable result is religious zealotry and extremism, and supression of science/rationality — but it is not just one person’s view that is being forwarded. Once this occurs, we are told that “My God has ordained this view,” whether it is Bush’s view that God has ordained him to impose democracy on other cultures, or the religious right’s conviction that their view should be imposed on all Americans and that public institutions should be harnessed to that effort, or the radical islamist view that their view must be imposed on all others as a way to save civilized society — and there is no hope of further discussion with either goup, let alone between them. That is the danger that is not being aknowledged here, and why I cringe when I wade into these discussions. Mercutio was right.
Peterr:
A very thoughtful post. However it all comes down to the fact that faith is based not on observation of the world and then a rational evaluation of the facts as known. Faith, in fact, is based on a lack of proof. That is the nature of faith whether it is faith in a deity or faith that the cars coming to a red light will really stop. The very idea that you need or want proof negates faith and it’s supposed benefits.
Science is based on facts. It is reproducible and falsifiable. It is constantly reviewed for inconsistencies and is altered if new data is made available. This is how we “know” anything. What is unsatisfying about science, to many people, is that it only tells us what has happened and how. It never addresses why things happen. This need for context is, I feel, a large part of the reason that people cling to their faith. However, faith does not effect the physical reality that we all live in.
The choice to believe without data is one that every person has, but it does not make their world view an accurate one. That, to me, is the problem with faith. As long as we say that it is okay for anyone can live by rules that are not based on the physical reality that we share, we will never be able to address the challenges that face our spices.
Cheers,
Without trying to get into anything which will upset either the evangelical religious or the evangelical atheists - they’re around, and threads like this tend to bring them out of the woodwork - I think creation is, in one sense, continuous: time is continuously created. Every day, hour, second: completely new and unused. Beyond that, I won’t go. But I don’t have a problem with science, which is a search for the rules of the universe, not a search for God or any other supreme being.
If one believes in God, then God endowed humans with free will, critical thinking, reasoning and the ability to develop and learn science (and all other things). He gave humans all the tools to make sense of their environment and their lives.
If one does not believe, then humans have evolved with those same capabilities.
It seems pretty simple to me.
The problem is that humans act so badly and unevolved so much of the time.
Some choose to ignore science and our own human history– we do it at our own peril. Neither science nor religion can save us from ourselves.
Thank you so much for clearly defining a reasonable and concise position in this delicate mater. I wish it could bridge the divide on this issue, an I intend to use it to further that goal.
Kudos to you, Peterr.
“How to read the Bible” does a pretty good job of addressing the issues of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It’s a little oversimplified- but the point is well made.
The disconnect between spirit and science is mirrored in the disconnect between love and social justice. It is all part of one good thing that is somehow insufficiently solipsistic to keep our attention. On the theocracy front, I am stumping for “the Progressive Protestant Church of America” — just a tiny attempt to take back the night theologically.
Anne @ 23:
Your anecdote hits close to home. When I was no more than 8 or 10 I was sitting through either a Sunday school or vacation bible school class in which a missionary on furlough from China was expounding on how far off base their religious beliefs were. I vividly recall thinking to myself (the shy child I was would never have raised the point openly) ‘How do we know for sure that we’re right and they’re wrong?’ At the time I felt guilty even entertaining the question but it wouldn’t go away. But several years later the questioning of religious authority was implicitly legitimized for me when my mother questioned the actions of the new, bigoted pastor who had recently come to our parish. A friend of my sister became engaged to the Catholic boyfriend she’d been going with since highschool, and the pastor strongly recommended that the family shun her. Mom, who up until then had always given the impression that she thought a preacher’s views were divinely inspired, rebelled at that. That was the beginning of my journey to where I am now, which is somewhere near the fuzzy border between deism and agnosticism.
Great post Peterr!
When the Terri Schiavo brouhaha hit the airwaves, I was completely oblivious to it — as I was with most of my family camped out in the waiting room of an ICU unit (where there was no TV, interestingly) trying to figure out how to handle the situation of an elderly family member. In the end, per her written wishes, and with much consultation with doctors, clergy and family, the decision was made to remove her from a ventilator. She died about 3 hours later surrounded by 14 members of her family. Science and religion were both essential during that time.
About a week later, after the funeral and sitting shiva, we turned on the TV to the Terri Schiavo tragedy — and it was so personally horrifying to think that if these people had their way, they would have the “right” to interfer in what is a very private and personal decision.
Peterr,
Thanks for a wonderfully thought-provoking post.
Real debate requires a common language and a basic respect for the beliefs of the other party in the debate. A big part of the problem in the Science v Religion wars is that those things are lacking on both sides in many cases.
I hold E.O. Wilson’s work, Ernst Mayr’s work (and others) in high regard. But they helped to create the war by rejecting religious viewpoints out of hand. They’re arrogant, and maybe I’d be arrogant too if I’d accomplished the sorts of things they have. But it doesn’t help move the discussion forward.
On the other hand, you have people like Josh McDowell who reject the science and substitute their own facts. As Mark Kleiman accurately put it, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.
I’m perfectly happy to talk science and religion with anyone who will accept the common body of facts. I can’t discuss science and religion with anyone who insists that they can reject reality and susbstitute their own.
BC
Ned coming up next on Air America. Just FYI.
I don’t have much occassion to engage in this intersection. The religious friends I have don’t see an opposition between religion and science. Nonetheless the question Peterr asks in his really excellent post is extremely important, thank you much.
I would strongly second the issue of exegetical practices. How one reads scripture is crucial.
I would add that a factor that inhibits a meta-discussion of how one reads scripture is fear, and that is a political and ideological problem. If a person starts to question how they read scripture, it can be terrifying in that it throughs almost anything into doubt.
So, if I may, can we also consider how to deal with fear of reading differently as a part of the impasse some see between science and religion?
OT - Sharkbabe, 55, Rubes.
I’m trying to get docs done today while being interrupted with calls from everyone wanting to “conference” like they are going to get free tupperware with each call.
So I put my “yeah, yeah” on autopilot and started scrolling through the thread.
Note to self - don’t do this again.
ROFL
Me @ 62: “throws” not “throughs”
A minister married to a scientist is no stranger than a Democrat married to a Republican…and I am the Democrat married to the Republican for almost 26 years and two kids.
It isn’t always easy, but it can be done!
Peterr,
I am in complete agreement about the danger of absolutism and fundamentalism.
I’m not sure that the impossibility of carving out the respective territories for religion and science leads to zealotry and extremism. Both of those modes of belief predate science.
There have always been, and always will be, people who believe their “tribe” to be chosen by god to have dominion. The best solution, IMO, was offered by the Framers: a relentlessly secular, tolerant government. Seems to me that theocracies are by nature imperialistic.
“It matters not if my neighbor worships one god or eight; it neither breaks my leg nor empties my bank account.”
By the way, I hope that my dope slap of the concern troll in a previous thread was not considered one of the uncivil posts. Despite his howls of protest, I feel I made the right call. Nevertheless, I apologize if I crossed a line.
anybody looking for a progressive congregation in the Oakland area - I can recommend two. I don’t attend, but the husband and wife pastors are good friends of ours.
Montclair Presbyterian Church
First Presbyterian Church of Oakland
I love reading about religion, string theory, language and music. All of these things sort of give me the sense of hearing “the music of the spheres,” as an old hymn puts it. A very peaceful, meditative feeling.
I don’t understand string theory, don’t get me wrong. I just enjoy it. It’s something so…I don’t know how to put it.
I still believe that the answer my Hebrew school teacher gave me in fifth grade is the most sensible thing I’ve heard on the topic.
“Well, the sun and moon weren’t created until the 4th day, right? So how do you know how long a day was before that? Perhaps the word is being used to mean another length of time instead.”
Peterr, your response to xyz in #29. I find myself embarrassed for you. Biblical interpretation? You mean God wrote a book, but kind of a poorly written, confusing, muddled one open to various interpretations? Have the courage to read the Sam Harris book.
On a different note, the consequences of the supposed opposition between science and religion are dire. To opposing things like a cure for cervical cancer (which is amazing to me, both the treatment and the opposition) is horrifying.
And as I have said on other threads, the opposition can be incoherent. We are in a world that depends on science utterly. There is no going back. The same people who rail against evolution are dependent on vaccines made possible due to advances in biology which is completely based on evolutionary science. But “evolution” in many anti-science tracts amounts to “dinosaurs.”
Cordelia at 70 — God didn’t write the book, he inspired it. Various “prophets” and “adherent faithful” wrote the Bible, as indicated by the names of the various books of the Bible. If you are going to adopt a condescending tone toward Peterr and his faith, you might want to be accurate in your attempt at snark. I’m just sayin’.
OT
Ned’s on Air America now
Ned’s handling himself much better with Sam Seder than he did last night.
BC
Ned’ has ‘afterglow’ last night was pretty successful.
BC at 74 — Ned is kicking ass this morning. Sam does a great interview. :)
Hope & BC, come back to the last thread.
Ned is really articulate and on fire today. Sounds as though he got a lot of confidence from last nite.
OT but it’s good to hear Lamont on AirAmerica today. Cspan replaying debate at 2pm ET.
Also, just heard Bayh is in Iowa defending his vote for the flag desecration ammendment and his continued support for Lieberman.
One of the divisions that are commonly thought of in the faith vs. science question is the notion that faith and reason are opposed. This is an incorrect assumption.
Faith and reason are functionally synonymous with awareness and will, heart and mind, they are the binary components of thinking beings.
We reason from our beliefs, and adjust our beliefs according to reason. But the two must co-exist.
To dispense with faith altogether is like saying human emotions are destructive, therefore we should get rid of them. Each of us ‘believes’ things we cannot see, or have not bothered to prove to ourselves. Faith is an operation of the mind, belief, not a construct of a particular religion.
In the context of Theo-Con dialogue, I would say there are two hurdles.
Firstly a doctrinal literalist view of scripture that often ignores exigetical analysis, for example contrasting accounts of creation contained within the first couple of chapters of Genesis.
Secondly the tendency for people to behave with a tribal ‘us vs. them’ tendency and operate from a position of arguing to re-inforce natively held predjudices, rather than arguing to arrive at the truth.
The socratic dialogues are a great example of dealing with this, as well as the conceit of making a committment prior to arguig to be willing to admit error for the sake of arriving at the truth of a discussion.
Establishing this conceit in discussion needs to be habitually brought to dialogue, but it carries a price, that both parties must be willing to concede error, something not always easy to do. Especially given our collective capacity to argue based on motives that are often very subjectively irrational.
I’m not suggesting that rational dialogue isn’t possible, but without establishing the main pitfalls to dialogue, and making a mutual committment to avoid them, what results tends to be a contest of intellectual bullying, rather than a real rational pursuit of the truest-best outcome of a discussion.
Let me re-iterate, those pitfalls tend to arise from each parties subjective motivation for arguing a particular issue. The remedy to this is of course to be able to aknowledge those subjective motivations, set them to the side, and overcome this shortcoming.
Going back to the faith and reason congnitive duality, understanding and agreement are again synonymous with faith, and reason. Faith and reason, are representative of the subjective and objective experience in human life.
One of the key problems in the ‘modern’ world is actually fundamentalism, religious and secular fundamentalism as manifested by christian, jewish, muslim, extremists, and on the secular side by political idealogues who like luddites all look back to ‘the good ole days’ of wilson, or who espouse dehumanizing machiavellian theories of foreign and domestic policy.
Fundamentalism is itself a pendulum swing away from modernism, which was/is itself the unbalanced tendency to throw away the past on the basis of not needing it because we’re modern.
We are at a period in history were millenialism has run rampant, technological changes and social change have shifted the axis of the world, population density in the east and decline in the west threatens to dimish the power and grandeur of the west.
The new world becomes the old.
In the face of all this change, and modern history-hysteria there is a lemming-like compulsion to look back instead of looking ahead.
It is fitting that we have a resurfacing of mythologies in modern context through Lord of the Rings epics, and comic book heroes. They are age ending stories. These stories resonate at this time because people fear the precipice of uncertainty we are now on at this stage of history.
What these ‘age ending stories reflect however is not ‘The end has come!’, but more to say ‘The age is dead. Long live the age.’.
What is fundamentalism, simply put it is people looking for their foundations, most often out of a sense of having gone astray, and trying to ‘get back to the path’. It’s wrong headed and pessimistic.
Sure the modern world has lots of scary bogeymen in it, George of the Bungle, numbering among them, but every one of us that innately feels the joy and comfort of good time shared, the joy of sunrise, or tranquility of sunset, the pure ebullient innocence of childhood need only have ‘faith’ in new life, and carry on.
The literal biblical quote that should resonate here for Christians is ‘Sufficient for the day are the troubles therein.” Basically Jesus telling people to live in the moment, instead of worry what tomorrow might bring.
That I suppose is the answer to the fundamentalists, that their fundamentalism actually reflects a lack of faith in their founding vision, and they’re reasoning their way to their roots, but forgetting the faith that has brought them to where they are.
Apologies for the long post.
Seder brings up Droney’s unbelievable statement and rape gurney Joe.
Oh YeaH!
Christy;
Isn’t that a logical fallacy? If God inspired the books, doesn’t he have responsibility for the contents and in fact the translations of it after the fact? It is supposed to be the explanation of our existence after all.
If he is not responsible for how it was written then your statement says that the idea of a god inspired these writings. That means they have as much or as little to say about how the world really is as any other text religious or not.
I am not trying to be argument, but Cornelia’s point is still valid. That said, she probably could have been less condescending in making it.
When I read posts like Peterr’s, I am reminded of a song in Jesus Christ Superstar…“Why did you choose such as backward time and such a strange land” (to spread your message)….
Cordelia,
Agreed.
Various “prophets” and “adherent faithful” wrote the Bible
It should be mentioned that they also often mistranslated, embellished, inserted and fabricated along the way
The Dinosaurs vs. The Bible. A few times I’ve debated/discussed the strict creationists folks. I always ask them to explain the dinosaurs. Usually, they get kind of doe-eyed. A few will mention that the 7 days are allegorical…a day might be millions of years. But they never can explain the existence of dinosaurs. Oh well.
My Christian belief is that Genesis, and the early books, were written by men, under the guidance of God, but with the men’s own understanding of how the world worked at their time. They wrote as best as they could, given their base of knowledge. Why didn’t God correct them…if God was involved?
Well…I’ve always looked to doctors, and leeches. (I’m just a bundle of fun this morning, huh!) Long ago, doctors thought leeches were an ok form of medical treatment. They were wrong. But I think many of those doctors acted in good faith…faith to science and personal religious belief. They acted under God’s hand…but as they saw and understood things back then. And why didn’t God correct the docors as well? Eventually, he did!
So, now that I’ve been totally obtuse, I’ll shut up. Morning Reverend, liked the article!
Ghostman
Bill E. — I’m just saying that is my understanding from years of attending my grandpa’s Methodist church and all my comparative religion and philosophy classes in college. I’m not saying that the faith doesn’t require a leap across a logical divide that often cannot be reconciled by people who do not share that desire to take the leap — that’s a whole post on its own, though, I think. *g* (And that’s above and beyond what rwcole was saying about there being contradictory “mythology” in the Bible itself on the genesis story alone. “The Babylonian Genesis” was a great book that I read in college on the development of the flood/creation belief system prior to Christianity and into the Christian faith. Interesting stuff just in that one, tiny segment of research. Wish Chicago Dyke were on — she’d have a LOT more background on this than I do…)
Angie…54
“…then God endowed humans with free will, critical thinking, reasoning and the ability to…learn science…”
I like it. Can we then say: ‘we think, therefore, we are’? Or is that a philosophical leap?
If you want to take some abstract metaphysical concept and call it ‘God’ just so you can feel like you are a true believer, go ahead. But if you talk to a ‘personal’ God and think this being has any influence on what happens in the world, you have a serious mental health problem.
C’mon, Christy. #72. If God only inspired the Bible, and did not oversee the content, why is there any discussion at all? You or I or Peterr could write something just as easily to confuse and muddle future generations of the faithful.
cordelia @ 70
It’s not a lack of courage, but a lack of time, that’s kept me from Harris’ book. If you’ve been around FDL for any length of time, you know that it’s easy to see how one’s reading list can grow exponentially.
As for embarrassment, please don’t be so on my behalf. I’ve been embarrassed for myself on more than a few occasions, for a wide variety of reasons that usually have little to do with religion. I’ve gotten used to it, and I’ll live. . .
But if you’re going to let a fringe fundie approach to scripture speak on behalf of all believers, then surely you’ll let pre-Copernican cosmologists represent science.
To borrow from your language, we should also note that the world itself, and the human societies that inhabit it, are pretty confusing and muddled themselves. Both science and religion are needed, in my book, to help to make sense of it, and mend it where broken.
OT Chertoff horning in on FBI presser now on live on CNN. Will anybody ask him why his Homeland Security Dept CUT funding for NYC all the while the FBI was actively tracking this group that allegedly plotted to destroy NYC tunnel/s.
Bill E., Cornelia: I am not sure I have you right, but a more basic question is, it scripture open to interpretation? If yes, then it is like any other text in that basic way. What it speaks to is certainly unique, but this is the problem of exegesis: do we treat scripture as a special form or written language which operates on different rules than the words we are all typing? I have a feeling I missing the point of contention.