In the New York Times Science section recently, scientists weighed in on the question of whether Francis Collins is fit to lead the National Institutes of Health. Can a man who reports a conversion experience to Christianity be qualified to lead America’s top institutes for medical research? Some say no. Physicist Robert L. Park, frequent critic of “voodoo science,” insisted that Collins’ conversion was no more than a “hormonal rush” with no higher meaning.
By and large, however, the criticisms of the new NIH director have been muted. The reason: Collins is not “soft on evolution.” He is an unapologetic defender of the Darwinian consensus. What makes this criterion so important? And why do some biologists (the so-called “New Atheists,” led by their enfant terrible, Richard Dawkins) now seem to believe it’s not enough?
Of course, there were always scientists who claimed that there is no room for God after Darwin. But the religicide option in the evolution wars really gained momentum over the last decade or so in response to the widespread popular support of the “intelligent design” (ID) movement. Massive numbers of Americans now endorse the ID claim that cellular structures such as hemoglobin are “irreducibly complex,” which means that evolutionary biology cannot explain them, even in principle.
Such assertions represent a double attack on science: they attempt to remove core biological phenomena from the reach of biology, and they claim that theories about an Intelligent Designer represent better science than the natural sciences can ever offer. Several polls show that over 50% of Americans affirm ID in this sense.
Scientists, sensing that the very institution of science was at stake, fired back with everything they had. Dawkins’ massively successful The God Delusion has sold over 1.5 million copies; some are claiming that it has “mainstreamed atheism” for the first time in American history.
For the contenders, the stakes are ultimate: the very existence of God on the one side, the very existence of science on the other. Is it any wonder that reasoned debates—discussions that acknowledge common ground—are almost nonexistent? When we ran the global “Science and the Spiritual Quest” program just a decade ago, many leading scientists took moderate views. Religion did not need to be destroyed, they told us, as long as the basic conditions for doing science were not undercut. Theologians and religious leaders responded in kind: religionists have every reason to support scientific research and to learn from its results.
You’ll have to look long and hard in the public-square discussion today to find similar bilateral calls for complementarity and partnership. Yet why should the relations between evolution and creation constitute a zero-sum game?
A moment’s reflection reveals multiple ways in which these two great products of the human spirit can be distinguished: religion asks about the why, science explains the how; science researches matters of empirical fact, while religion is concerned with matters of ultimate values; scientists use empirical techniques and theories to account for the physical and natural world, whereas religionists are concerned with the metaphysical and the supernatural; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven.
One does not need to find all these formulations adequate (I, for one, do not) in order to doubt that science demands the death of religion or religion the death of science. Here’s the point: only when one affirms some sort of “live and let live” policy is it possible even to begin a serious discussion about evolutionary biology and (say) belief in God.
When evolutionary and religious explanations are construed as fighting for the same territory, they will unleash their weapons upon each other—as today’s religion wars show. When we recognize and acknowledge their different strengths, a far more interesting discussion emerges.
This new debate is challenging because it requires both sides to give up certain hegemonic claims: scientists, the claim that science provides the answer to all metaphysical questions; and religionists, the claim that they know better than science how nature works. Yet a whole series of fascinating questions arises when hegemony is off the table: is there a directionality to evolution or is it, as Stephen Jay Gould thought, a “drunkard's walk”? Do the emergent worlds of culture, ideas, philosophy, art, and even religion make any irreducible contributions to explaining what it is to be human? How (if at all) could a divine influence on cosmic history be compatible with the scientific study of the cosmos? What kind of influence would it have it be? Will humans respond more appropriately to the global climate crisis when scientific data are combined with religious values and motivations for action?
Both theists and evolutionary theorists have much at stake in these questions.
Interestingly, though, in this inquiry they’re not necessarily opponents. What emerges from the ashes, then, after the New Atheists and the intelligent design theorists have employed their weapons of mass destruction? The deeper questions still call for attention. We still ask what it means to be human, who we are, and how we should act in the world. What stories will we tell about ourselves and the universe? Which of those stories are true and which are false? How should we tell them differently in light of the best empirical data and theories?
This new discussion does not entail a different kind of science, though it does call for science without ideology. It does, however, call for a broader view of religion. John Haught puts it brilliantly in his forthcoming book, Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life: “If we measure the movement of life in terms of a narrow human preoccupation with design, evolution seems blind and aimless.” Haught offers a vision of what this religion might look like in his own (Christian) context:
A properly biblical theology of nature will view divine wisdom, providence and compassion less as a guarantee of the world’s safety—as the idea of design encourages—than as an unbounded self-emptying graciousness that grants the world an open space and generous amount of time to become more, and in doing so ample opportunity to participate in its own creative self-transformation.
Tags: atheism, creation, dawkins, divine, evolution, intelligent design, nature, religion, science, theology
There is more to science that physics and evolution. The real problem here is, what constitutes a "metaphysical" question as opposed to a "natural" question?
Specifically, is Collins going to be willing to fund research on morality, or is he going to deny funding under the assumption that his religion already has the answer?
These are important questions, in my opinion we already know far too much about physics and far too little about how the brain works, and a NIH director who thinks his religion has all the answers regarding mental processes won't help this fundamental problem.
We don't know enough about physics. Perhaps the Europeans can come to our rescue here. We led the world in research until we decided to kill our supercollider project. Europe can now continue this work that ultimately might lead to the theory of everything and the explanation of the workings of the universe.
That was a good point about the problem of denying funding on the assumption that religion already has the answer. As time goes by, science tends to expand into new areas, and when those areas start to intersect with areas previouisly talked about in religion we must make sure science is not discouraged from doing the experiments to test if what religion has been saying is right or wrong.
I would like to point out, factually, two things:
1) NIH funds research into, as you might expect, health-related issues. If morality is a topic of research, it would probably fall under the "behavioral and social science" category, which, you'll notice, is getting an increase in funding.
2) The director of the NIH, like the President of the United States, does not make every decision.
nuclear.kelly,
You make some good points. The director doesn't make all the decisions, but he does have considerable power over general directions and quite a bit of veto power.
This particular director, has openly stated that "the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted." One of these claims is that we can know, through natural means, more about the nature of the mind than we currently do. It remains to be seen how, and how strongly, he will express his "stedfast resistance" to the progress of our knowledge in this area.
Science does not have all of the answers to metaphysical questions and the nature of God. Perhaps it can provide better answers in these areas than religion. Science has the advantage of filtering out what is incorrect, and zeroing in on ever deeper truth of the nature of the universe. Religion thinks is already has answers, and sometimes tries to silence lines of questioning that might lead to contradictions of established teachings.
Religion is a bad influence on science and the world when it tries to silence lines of research, and turn the people against the revelations of science. Science is never a bad influence on religion, and without it we would still be stuck in the dark ages.
Why is a Professor of Religion commenting on what Science should do? Again, we have a Liberal Arts Professor commenting on something out side his field of expertise. If he just addressed Religion, it would not be a problem. Science is not his discipline.
Science was trying to stay separate from religion and ignore the creationists, and they might have stayed on that path a little too long. As conservatives gained power they mounted their war on science, and especially on evolution. Science was finally forced to engage, and they counter-attacked hard. They answered virturally every point of reasoning that the creationists were trying to raise, and redoubled their efforts of finding links for many of the open questions like how birds evolved from their dinosaur ancestors, how whales evolved from land animals moving back into the sea, and filling in more of the picture of human evolution. The last 10 years have been a golden age of evolution research, and the war is on. Science has evidence but religion still has the numbers. I think Professor Clayton is just saying perhaps this war can be toned down a little so that there might be fewer casualties. particularly on the religion side.
Wait, if it is wrong for a Religion professor to comment on Science, is it also wrong for scientists to comment on Religion? Is there no room for interdisciplinary discussion?
Also, Religion and Science are both very broad topics and groups of people, many of whom have feet in both camps. Don't lump all religious people into the Christian fundamentalist camp, and don't lump all scientists into the atheist fundamentalist camp.
Interdisciplinary discussion? So you are saying you would go to a Doctor of Philosophy for a sore throat and not a Doctor of Medicine? I guess you could discuss it between the two disciplines, but who is likely to cure you of your sore throat?
My cousin's husband is a Professor of Philosophy. He has some terrific remedies for a sore throat and would be happy to share them with you
Sen. Orrin Hatch believes you should have the right to make your health care insurer pay a Doctor of Philosophy for your (mistaken) belief that the Doctor of Philosophy can cure your sore throat (as mentioned in Religion Dispatches already).
Since such violations of separation of church and state generally arise from constituents' requests, it follows that quite a lot of people may now be going to Doctors of Philosophy for their "health care" and resenting that their insurers aren't paying for this "real health care."
The fact that people are now insisting that their health care insurers jack up everyone else's premiums to pay for their "faith healing" means, to me at any rate, that polite interdisciplinary discussion is now quite improbable, if not impossible.
Sorry to say, many of us here are entirely out of our fields of expertise, but this site gives us the right to our opinion, whether we are or are not experts.
I don't think all religious people are in the Christian fundamentalist camp. Some are in the science camp. They are helping us in our war against the anti-science faction.
It shouldn't be wrong for a religion professor to comment on science, and it is proper and appropriate and even important for science to comment on religion. Science can add objectivity to the field of religion. One example is Carl Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World. It contains a psychological analysis of concepts of demon possession and witch burning, and how these religious concepts can have rational explanations and don't need to be viewed as religious happenings.
After the 1987 US Supreme Court decision prohibiting the teaching of creationism in public schools, creationism was reinvented as intelligent design creationism. It is still based on religion, and it is still not science.
As Norman Levitt, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Rutgers University, wrote in 2005, intelligent design creationism is "not new science, fringe science, nor even junk science. It is merely window-dressing for a movement that is social, political, and, above all, theological down to its core, and which never had the least intention of doing disinterested science."
The world of science - scientists and scientific organizations - is rightly horrified that non-science is attempting to be recognized as science.
Everybody who has a vested interest in our technological civilization (longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, all our technological toys such as the internet) should be horrified that the Christian Reconstructionists and Theocratic Dominionists want to destroy evolution and biology and all of science so they can return to the Dark Ages of scientific illiteracy and ignorance.
Google the "Wedge Document" - or Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals” - to see where the intelligent design creationists want to go.
Science should be concerned, but it is a solvable problem. Religion is the one that should be horrified because they are doing this to themselves. The religious majority (at least in America) starts a war on science that will force those other people of religion who also care about truth to fight against them. Science has done its job. It has done all it can do. This war must be fought as religion vs. religion (or maybe fought as wedge vs. wedge)
The War of the Wedges
"A moment’s reflection reveals multiple ways in which these two great products of the human spirit can be distinguished: religion asks about the why..."
Only, religion asks "why" and gets the wrong answers. Every time. It doesn't even care what the answers are, so long as the people are properly cowed (or sheeped, as the case may be) and deflected from the problems and injustices of this world towards the fantasy of the next. Not only is it not a great product of the human spirit, it is the snivelling remnant of our animistic infancy, when we dared not look the world in the face, with full consciousness of its great and awful reality.
"Yet why should the relations between evolution and creation constitute a zero-sum game?"
If "Creation" is factually wrong and explicitly exists to destroy the underpinnings of modern science (see the wedge strategy) following a propagandistic anti-intellectual cultural agenda, wouldn't that sound like a zero-sum game? It does to me.
"Here’s the point: only when one affirms some sort of “live and let live” policy is it possible even to begin a serious discussion about evolutionary biology and (say) belief in God."
Why have a serious discussion at all? If one side is justified, and the other side is a massive flimflam, then the need for dialog is minimal. Critique is what is needed- the more trenchant and truthful, the better. People need to have an internal dialog with themselves, about their choice between reality and the endless fantasies of religion.
"This new debate is challenging because it requires both sides to give up certain hegemonic claims: scientists, the claim that science provides the answer to all metaphysical questions; and religionists, the claim that they know better than science how nature works. Yet a whole series of fascinating questions arises when hegemony is off the table: is there a directionality to evolution or is it, as Stephen Jay Gould thought, a “drunkard's walk”?"
... "How (if at all) could a divine influence on cosmic history be compatible with the scientific study of the cosmos? "
Why, after a sentence about how religion not claiming to know how nature works, the next sentence implies that science does not know how nature works, and religion may know better? How incoherent can a writer get? If you must invoke magisteria, at least get them straight, please.
" ... after the New Atheists and the intelligent design theorists have employed their weapons of mass destruction?"
Mass destruction? More like targeted destruction. ID attacks intellectualism and science. Atheists attack ID and religion more generally for being false. One of them might just be right, justified, and doing a task of mass construction. And as if to make the point with stunning clarity, the next passage refers to "unbounded self-emptying graciousness".
What complete fiddlefaddle! Need the New Atheists say more?
"Only, religion asks "why" and gets the wrong answers. Every time. It doesn't even care what the answers are, so long as the people are properly cowed (or sheeped, as the case may be) and deflected from the problems and injustices of this world towards the fantasy of the next. Not only is it not a great product of the human spirit, it is the snivelling remnant of our animistic infancy, when we dared not look the world in the face, with full consciousness of its great and awful reality."
Really? It's nice to be reminded that fundamentalism isn't confined to theistic religious perspectives, but infects the atheist religious perspective. Either/or, narrow-minded, extremist, bigoted thought is found in all perspectives. Religious faith and atheistic faith have BOTH inspired both good and evil, both justice and injustice, in the world.
Oh yes, the New Atheism is so self evidently correct that every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., should just hang their heads in shame and abandon their spiritual paths to join yours. In fact, there are many people of faith who are quite open to what modern science discovers - in ALL areas of scientific endeavor, including the scientific study of religion itself - without abandoning their religious faith. The New Atheism is, in fact, one religious option among many, which has to compete with them: to claim otherwise is to adopt the same kind of fundamentalist narrowmindedness it claims to be against.
Hi, Lemonholm
Thanks for your vigorous response!
One really has to ask why there are "Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc." at all. Do they agree with each other, or do they think each other balmy? Did they not get the same revelation? Can they all be right, or have they shared a common bit of human nature, with a great deal of artistry and various amounts of wishful thinking piled on top?
I agree that many people of faith can evidently take science seriously (often selectively), though it is hard to understand how they can reconcile the science of religion with faith in religion. The science of religion boils down to the study of human nature- how we begin in infancy with default supernatural beliefs, and as adults continue have many cognitive /psychological /social predilections for irrational beliefs, of which supernaturalism is a prime example. Between the hidden-ness of god, the absence of miracles, and the utility and accuracy of rational models of reality, I am not sure where you find room for faith, or why you would wish to.
Don't Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian outside of the U.S. accept evolution? If there is any resistance in any of those other religions, they should take note of the mess that American Christianity has caused for itself and learn not to reject science because of belief.
Honest! I like your style of expressing yourself.
Here's a dose of evolution: Evolutionists actually believe (though they hate to be reminded) that their ancestors were hairy, stinky, slobbering, grunting, knuckle-dragging, cootie-picking primates. Also, most evolutionists have never admitted the fact that Darwin's only earned academic degree was (gasp!) a religious degree in theology. So much for his so-called "scientific" theories.
I hate to be reminded of this too: I actually know a "hairy, stinky, slobbering, grunting, knuckle-dragging, cootie-picking primate" and he lives a block away from me.
"By and large, however, the criticisms of the new NIH director have been muted. The reason: Collins is not “soft on evolution.” He is an unapologetic defender of the Darwinian consensus. What makes this criterion so important? And why do some biologists (the so-called “New Atheists,” led by their enfant terrible, Richard Dawkins) now seem to believe it’s not enough?"
I take this to be saying that I, Richard Dawkins, have publicly cast doubts upon Francis Collins' suitability for his job heading NIH. That is a lie. I have never done so. On the contrary, on the several occasions when I have been publicly asked about this appointment, I have supported it.
Richard Dawkins
Mr. Dawkins,
Technically he said those biologists who are led by you are the ones who are casting the doubts. He also calls you an enfant terrible, and I think you should take that as a compliment. I hope you don't try to throw any cold water on our discussion here because it is a fun discussion and we are learning a lot. It is kind of like reading a book, only it is short and doesn't take much time, and you can write a response.
Jim Reed, you always come up with the greatest comments!
I hate to say it, because normally I don't like JR's comments, but that was freakin' awesome.
It has become easy for critics of the recent "atheist literary wave" (as Time Magazine has put it) to treat the so-called "new atheists" as one unit. It is helpful to be reminded that this is unfair.
Of course, it is the new atheist Sam Harris (not an evolutionary biologist) who challenged Collins' appointment to head the NIH, in an infamous New York Times editorial. He received strong critism for it--from me in this venue, from Ken Miller in the NYT, and from numerous others--and those criticisms are, in my view, well deserved.
While I'm certain Prof. Clayton did not intend to do so, it is easy to read a guilt-by-association into the passage quoted here by Dawkins. I know from recent conversations with Ken Miller--an unapologetic defender of evolutionary theory if there ever was one, but also a theist--that Dawkins does not engage in the same ideological dismissal of theists of which Harris seems to be guilty (at least in this case, if not always). If there are bioligists who are questioning Collins' suitability for heading the NIH, they're taking their lead from someone else.
I taught, day by day, with a teaching partner, and, although we agreed on teaching methods, we agreed on nothing else. Naturally, we were off to a rocky start, but soon appreciated the hair-raising discussions on the things with which we did not agree. At the end of 10 years, we concluded: "Let us just agree that we disagree." For the next 10 years, we still continued our lively, "disagreeable" discussions, but it became a contest of who raised the best points, not who won the discussion.
This may seem simplistic, but this same attitude once worked for our country when Freedom of Religion was first established in the U.S. Constitution. While we recognize there are many faiths, each should have the right to believe whatever religion (or non-religion) they choose, even as some of us disagree. It worked for nearly 150 years, and really should still work if we do not continue to take the arrogant stance that our own beliefs are better than others' beliefs. Actually, some of the kindest, most moral, and thoughtful people in my family were Atheists and Agnostics. Now, how does a Fundamentalist figure that?
My teaching partner and I, of course, discussed religious beliefs. His Religion taught that the Bible is a literal, Word-of-God document. I, as a Roman Catholic, believed that the Bible is "chuck full" of analogies and historical idioms--a terrific, God-blessed history text. I do not know if this is Catholic Church policy, but the Catholics I have known all my life believed that science-proven Creation is a perfectly acceptable theory. In fact, we all believed that it was hugely simple to believe both Evolution and Creationism, at the same time. After all, the Earth could be seven thousand years old or 70 billion years old, but God has said, "I always was and always will be," and it should be perfectly reasonable to ask why should God hang out for billions of years without drumming up something to do, such as creating dinosaurs, flies in amber, cave men, and mountains, etc.
Perhaps God Himself is a scientist, experimenting here and there with evolutionary ideas. If there is God, and He created this Earth, there is no one in this world who can outdo His intelligence, so I do not know how mere mortals can come to "written in stone" conclusions about either theories. Why can't we agree to disagree, giving respect just as we want to be respected? The most wonderful Uncle I had was an Atheist. He was awesome--a man of great intelligence; virtue of every kind; a good father; a great leader. As Christians, we children wondered and asked how he could be so good when he didn't have any intention of going to heaven. His answer was: "Because of all that I do for my family, my community, my country, I will live on in the hearts of others." It still breaks me up even after all these years, to recall his words. What could be better than that? If only we could live in the hearts of others, these horrible disagreements that polarize our country would not exist.
I have some relatives who are Atheists, some Jews, and others Agnostics. All of us could have, what we consider, serious reasons to argue our religious and non-religious views, but we loved each other and agreed to disagree to show our respect for each others' beliefs. Do you think it may ever be possible to boil it down to: "Let us agree to disagree"?
We can agree to disagree up to a point. That point is when the scientific research has devised a test to determine which is right. A key concept in evolution is common ancestry. Do we have a branching tree of life, or separate creation events that can't fit into a tree structure? If we can demonstrate life is a branching tree structure, then whatever else you might think about the theology of life, Darwin was right. Any creation scientist who doesn't want to see the truth of the tree of life is not really a scientist no matter what reasonings they are coming up with. So if you can admit Darwin was right, and any creationist who thinks there is not a common tree of ancestory is not a true scientist, then we can agree to disagree on the rest of the details.
Do you think because someone wants to believe that the world began in seven days and Adam and Eve were the first upright vertebrates, we cannnot let them go their merry way and now science cannot exist? All science begins with a theory, research is done, some theories do not "pan out," some theories do. It is the way of scientists--driven to find the truth. The truth does not arrive instantly; it waxes and wanes as one scientist disproves the findings of another or supports the theories of another with experimentation. Science can never be dead; scientists must continue searching for the truth, and encouraged to do so. Any scientist would agree with that.
Religion is not a science, although, as I stated before, some live hapily with both scientific and religious theories. But why not let the faithful believe as they will (of course, all the while, ironically, using the wonders of science in medicine and technology).
The problem and force of disagreeing has made a far righ turn to become political policy--dare I say fascist policy? Who has the right to impose their beliefs on another? This is causing a huge threat to our democracy.
Science cannot disappear; it has made our lives' more healthy, more technically efficient, and who wants to deny that evolution goes on, even in the present (just pick up a few copies of National Geographic or note, daily, the newly-developed technology and great breakthroughs in medicine).
I guess what I want to emphasize is, how do we let the Fundamentalist believe what they want to believe without creating a world-wide struggle? How can we learn to agree that we do disagree on this topic and go on with our lives without this traumatic conflict of theories? To be sure, I would be the first to believe what I want to believe and defend my right to my beliefs; however, no country can uphold a democracy if a particular theory is advanced and then forced on a government to the detriment of those with different and/or opposing beliefs.
When I say that we should agree to disagree, i am not, at all, condoning a Fundamentalist theocracy for the United States, and have all the scientists suppressed by a religious government. I am saying that we, somehow, must come to an agreement that we can respect disagreement on this topic, but certainly leave our government with a defined separation of Church and State, allowing science and evolutional theories to continue, and also letting religious communities believe whatever they wish to believe, as long as it is recognized, by that mutual respect, that we have a right to our own theories and beliefs and will not impose them on one another. Here's the rub: who can come up with the magic formula of how to do this? How can we stave off this disgraceful "unmeeting" of the minds? This is where I stop; I haven't, unfortunately, the slightest idea.
Science did not choose this battle. Science wanted separation of church and state. Science tried to turn the other cheek and do its job as religion did its. This status quo continued until conservative religion started feeling the power and started their wedge war. Science was forced to engage. In every war there are two sides, and something you might see as a Darwinian struggle. Both sides are alive, and therefore sometimes unpredictable. The wedge warplan was carefully conceived, but when they finally woke science up the wedgers were outclassed.
Darwin was a sensative, caring, loving father and man. I think when everything is considered, you could call him a man of God. He knew what he was starting, but he knew the job had to be done. If he could see us now, I think he would be proud of how science has continued what he started. As he waited decades to publish what he knew would stress the world, science patiently held back for decades giving religion time to deal with this next advance. Only when conservative religion stressed things too far did science use their full power to respond. The wedge war is causing a split, but it is the wrong split. Science does its job, and once again religion is left to deal with self inflicted wounds.
Certainly, individuals should be shown all possible respect for their personal senses of meaning and purpose, however constructed- through religion or through other personal commitments.
On the other hand, the "best points" that you refer to deserve a place in the public discourse, so that these issues can be discussed in the most thorough way. People who put themselves up as public philosophers, theologians, and leaders in thought deserve the critique that comes their way from this discourse. Thus one might point out that creationist ideas in their various iterations are thoroughly incorrect, or that the presence of theologians in academic departments of philosophy is an absurd anachronism. Or that trying to convince people of the rationality of religion on the basis of frozen water falls worthy of Thomas Kincade is going to be less than convincing.
In the case of Francis Collins, having felt the need to write a whole book about how he tries to reconcile faith with science, he should not be surprised that some might find that reconciliation less than coherent, based as it is not on logic or science, but on a set of personal feelings and experiences. Had it remained a private matter, he would not have been called to task for his glaring intellectual inconsistencies despite his high qualifications and eminent ability to lead the NIH.
The point in the end is to improve such things as the science education you were involved in. If we merely agree to disagree, and stay in our intellectual bunkers, then the truth would never be clarified, and we would still be teaching Genesis as introductory biology. Education is a communal enterprise and requires public discourse as part of its development and progress.
Amen!
Silly ideas fade away only when people realize they are silly.
Ridicule is how we show silly ideas for what they are. Ridicule is how we point out the emperor has no clothes.
Ridicule is how we treat people like Peter Popoff when he claims to magically heal people.
Ridicule is how we should treat people who believe 2000-year-old tales of magical healing.
Ridicule is how Sanal Edamaruku treated Indian tantric "magician" Pandit Surinder Sharma and his silly death curses.
Ridicule is how we should treat people who believe in divine magic.
Ridicule is how we treat the people who claim to have seen Elvis Presley resurrected.
Ridicule is how we should treat people who believe 2000-year-old hearsay tales that Jesus Christ was resurrected.
Once we loosen up enough to allow ridicule of religions just as we allow ridicule of astrology-believers and spoon-benders, once a few generations of children put the tales of their parents and priests into perspective, we'll be able to get on with the task of enlightenment.
There are laws against assaulting someone because of their mystical/magical/divine beliefs. But there's no law against laughing at them.
Laughter is the best medicine.
Laughter is the best medicine but ridicule is just plain mean.
There's certainly some sort of conflict between science and faith in the public mind, however, in arenas where science counts most, there is no relevant conflict. Genuine scientific exploration, discovery and understanding has thoroughly discounted the rather sophomoric attempts by creationists to "battle" with evolutionary biology and related fields. The less-informed, those less diligent in the logical consistency of their thinking cling to this idea that "evolution" is somehow legitimately challenged by "creationism" when it is clearly not and isn't likely ever to be. There is no "war" in professional circles and will be no resulting "ashes" except for human error and irrationality wherever it is found. As long as some human beings are genuine in their explorations, genuine in their discoveries, genuine in their conclusions toward the goal of real knowledge, real wisdom, those less genuine will pose no serious challenge to science OR to evolutionary theory or any other study that values accurate observation and logically-consistent reasoning over error and illogic.
"There's certainly some sort of conflict between science and faith in the public mind, however, in arenas where science counts most, there is no relevant conflict."
Is there a public mind or are there rather, a significant number of people who have not been able to let go of one ideology or another in the face of the scientific evidence?
We might do well to look at this problem from the perspective of cultural anthropolgy rather than as some kind of argument between science and religion. What must we do to help people "look", "see", "test" and understand?
Education, both formal and informal is our primary means to adaptation to reality. Our courts have upheld science but we continue to have those who don't see the scientific reality since their perceptions are different based on their ideology. It might be illuminating to know what sort of dynamics occur(ed) within various low-tech societies that encounter(ed) scientific and new social realities. I suspect we might find a similar cauldron of discourse with some of the same kinds of frustration, anger and vitriolic that we have found ourselves immersed for the past ever how many decades,(depending on who and when, we wish to discuss battling the irrationalities of "fundamentalism").
There is no "false battle" but rather a battle of perceptions in which old ideologies and "new" ideology continue to flare up in the individual minds of people undergoing relatively rapid change. The flames are fanned by our passions, (including my own) and I doubt that passion against passion will do much to create the needed change.
Just like Galileo stuck his neck out despite popular belief at the time, humanity is better off because he, and those after, woke up.
Creationism is not science. It is merely the same product of imagination that the Ancient Egyptians had in falsely claiming the sun was a thinking being. The sooner humanity discards bad claims, the quicker we can focus on solving the real problems all humans have.
But in no way should any believer of any label, or any atheist, want to seek the oppression of others. The Dark Ages failed. Hitler failed, and Iran's oppression will eventually fail.
This debate IS important and our species depends on us having it. Without it we will never crawl out of the past.
No dissagreement with "This debate IS important...", it's just that it needs to be taking place in the minds of individuals who have the free choice to make their own decisions in light of the evidence.
The public battle must and will go on but change won't occur until individuals look, see and understand.
Naked assertions should offend anyone. And if you are offended by my calling deity belief absurd, you should be offended by your own lack of evidence.
Super brains, with no brain, with no body, with no neurons, or cerebellum, by any name, polytheist, or monotheist, past or present, are absurd claims and there is absolutely no evidence for such.
WHAT WE DO have evidence for is human behavior. Humans are capable of making up stories and believing them to be fact.
Our flaw as a species is that we have a tendency to fill in the gap without thinking or examining.
I, personally, am not offended. Would you accept that the presence of a deity may be an unconfirmed hypothesis?
First would you accept Darwin was right?
It is not at all difficult to accept Darwin was right, although he did not completely abandon the possibility of a deity's role in Evolution.
Would you, for instance, accept that quantum mechanics as a mathematical description of reality is entirely correct?
Maggie,
The issue of accepting Darwin might be larger than you think. The problem is he has been the object of Christian hatred for 150 years. Christian hatred is one of the worst kinds because it is always disguised as love. You should help your fellow Christians come to understand Darwin was a loving, caring father and man who always had the best interests of mankind in his heart. He was unfairly scorned by his own religion because he told the truth in a world that didn't want to hear it. If you can accomplish this, you will heal one of the biggest splits in humanity of the last couple centuries.
The only entirely correct mathematical description of reality would be the Theory of Everything, and that is not yet discovered. Probably a theological debate for another century.
QUOTE"Certainly, individuals should be shown all possible respect for their personal senses of meaning and purpose, however constructed- through religion or through other personal commitments."
Why? I guess that would mean the 19 hijackers deserve respect "just because".
Humans deserve the respect of not being oppressed, but we shouldn't blindly accept every utterance out of others mouths, that would be foolish. And has been deadly.
I don't think that anyone has suggested that we respect 19 hijackers. Their behavior was a deviant act, not a war of words.
Had we an open forum on airing disagreements, is it possible that we could have known far ahead about their beliefs and averted violence and murder in solving differences? I don't know. What do you think?
We must respect people's right to express their ideas (up to a point).
We don't have any obligation whatsoever to respect their ideas.
We don't have to respect the KKK's ideas on diversity, or the Taliban's ideas on women's education. And we don't have to respect someone's statement that the Moon is made of cheese or that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
We don't have to respect someone's belief that either Adam's Eve or Lord Voldemort were real and could talk to snakes.
You have the right to free speech, but not the right to be taken seriously.
You are entirely right that we do not have to respect a person's ideas, and have a right not to follow the seriously silly (and seriously lethal) ideas that some people have. I do, however, believe, that in the interest of civility and overcoming human conflict, it behooves us all to recognize the right to speak and the right to be heard--thus, the respect necessary to first agree and, possibly, that we disagree. In this way, we are all made aware of the variety of perspectives on any one topic. What we do about these perspectives and/or how we change these perspectives are the "rub."
There are times when a variety of perspectives does no harm to the majority, "the moon is made of cheese" may be one of them". There are, however, other times when a group's perspectives infringe upon or destroy the rights of others. That is another story.
In fact, in recent years it has become obvious to us all that the Religious Far Right's has definitely moved into several federal and state government positions. Do they have honorable intentions? I would definitely want to know whether their ultimate purpose is to create a theocracy in the U.S. Some religious conservatives have said this, but others deny this. Right now, Far Right Conservatives are keeping that information "close to the vest."
I, personally, would want open dialogue with representatives of the Far Right's actual intentions, without calling them "idiots"--never a good start for serious dialogue. I must admit (privately, of course) that they are getting truly "scary" when they have a "secret house" right within the confines of Washington, D.C.
"...is there a directionality to evolution or is it, as Stephen Jay Gould thought, a “drunkard's walk”? "
The drunkard’s walk debate is particularly relevant as we witness our efforts to create society through our political institutions. Sausage-making barely captures the dynamics involved. Something more like what evolutionists describe as occurring in the natural world describes our political process, with the carcasses of failed politico-evolutionary experiments littering the path on which society treads. If Gould is right, then humanity’s efforts to guide itself are swimming against a very strong river current that resides in our very bones and marrow. If Gould is wrong, then those that find simply irresistible the idea there’s some Plan to the All will be greatly relieved – their steadfastness in the face of the rising tide of experimental and developmental science will be rewarded (since a Plan must imply a Planner, right?). Alas, but existence seems little concerned about our formulations. Any scientist worth his salt learns this early in his career. Yet if Gould is right, we’ve got our work cut out for us – our very inherent tendencies may betray (or at least deflect) our efforts to grow in understanding at the marvel of our own existence. So far, few have found that prospect exhilarating. More’s the pity.
"...religion asks about the why, science explains the how..."
Oh, really? Seems perhaps each seeks to answer both. More interesting is the question of the how and why of each of these poles themselves, including from whence they came. Alas, so few wish to explore this. Rather the more common attitude is to lob bombs at any inquiry, lest inquiry erode away claimed power. Ultimately (ultimately?) this tension suggests these two poles are really opponents battling on the field of reality for acclaim, since both “know” on some level that without acclaim, they do not exist. Similarly, the dispossessed, the disenfranchised, don’t exist, except and until those that do exist run into them.
"...these two great products of the human spirit ..."
It’s a misnomer to attribute commodity status to science. Whether religion deserves this assignment is an interesting question. Perhaps it does. But science at its root is how existence has unfolded, at least biologically. And amid that exercise of the “laws of science” (these include the fact that the outcome of something real is consistent and predictable, never mind for now the ‘little problem’ of chaos and complexity) expedience has ruled the day – that which works affects things; that which doesn’t, doesn’t. And since that on which this “effecting” is exercised is every entity that is doing the affecting – a most remarkable feedback – we see that life has actually lifted itself by its own boot straps. Rather remarkable, and no doubt something those that simply have to have some sort of designer as part of existence regard as “strong evidence” the designer was directly involved is this whole scheme of unfolding. “How else might this have come about?” you can hear them say. Science of course needs no such deus ex machina in its formulation of existence. So there’s the rub: one position simply can’t forgo some sort of deity; the other finds no need for one. Ne’er the twain shall meet.
"....when one affirms some sort of “live and let live” policy is it possible even to begin a serious discussion ..."
Oh, nonsense! This guy is hopelessly romantic and naïve. The only way ‘live and let live’ is going to fly requires each to give some ground in some way, or find new ground neither has yet claimed on which to meet. Happily, the field of reality is large enough that things not ordinarily considered as connected to this science-spiritual tension offer some turf with (and on) which a meshing of these polarities can occur. For instance, it is certainly true that people are quite different, one from another, and further, people evolve in their understanding from some starting point (usually their culture’s framing of self and existence). Acknowledging this truth (it’s a truth, right?) gives religion great latitude to be part of people’s lives even while the indifference of science proceeds apace. We may wish that fire’s beauty can allow us to caress it, but one attempt certainly proves our wish fanciful. Still, is not the wish somehow sweet, and an expression of the human spirit?
A properly biblical theology of nature will view divine wisdom, providence and compassion less as a guarantee of the world’s safety—as the idea of design encourages—than as an unbounded self-emptying graciousness that grants the world an open space and generous amount of time to become more, and in doing so ample opportunity to participate in its own creative self-transformation. (John Haught)
Should I first mention that the quoted sentence really reads better if one adds the word “offers” after the phrase “in doing so…”? It is a strange deism that postulates a world set in motion by some divinity that thereafter is able to shape its own self-transformation. What then is the point of the deity, once the project of existence is initiated? Of course, what sophists will likely exclaim is that this same deity remains available and is participating in the unfolding of existence. The problems this viewpoint sets before believers are overwhelming and well-examined already (usually culminating with various nonsense conclusions that have been well-described as genuine tests of one’s faith). Since faith is at the root of religion – never mind all these conversations about proving this or that – it really doesn’t matter what sorts of explanations and arguments get created in defense of religion. Faith is a mental state that greatly comforts most everyone. Just look at the horse with its blinders – perfectly willing to walk through hell since he can’t see it. Then it’s not so hard to imagine the drunkard’s walk that horse will travel if it has no one in the saddle. But it seems humans are in the process of finding their seat in the saddle, rather than simply being the horse. Ah, but while the view from that saddle is awe-inspiring, the decision how to proceed, which direction to go, and which horizon to aim for – these are real challenges. This is the spirituality at the core of science, one that will require the whole of humanity to determine. From the saddle, anyone who has his eyes open will welcome guidance, and even be willing to sort through what has arisen from our primordial superstitions. After all, religions have existed for millennia for a reason – they offer practical solutions to everyday problems, and offer frameworks however flawed that show it is possible to consider the big questions from which an understanding of existence, including our own existence, can grow.
Maggie McCarthy wrote:
"... I, as a Roman Catholic, believed that the Bible is "chuck full" of analogies and historical idioms--a terrific, God-blessed history text ..."
I, as a Catholic parent, would like to bring your attention some magisterial Catholic statements on the subject of ... the book of Genesis, ... Creation Ex nihilo ... and how cutting edge science says "No" to evolution."
Partial quote:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
- Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
. . .
- All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
. . .
- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
. . .
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.
. . .
- Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth’s atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth’s magnetic field.
. . .
- There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types.
For the full article,
see:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
What Does Cutting- Edge Science Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
See also:
Genesis 1-11 (NIV)
e.g. "In the beginning God created ..."
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11&version=NIV
While I appreciate your view and am delighted that you have carefully researched your statements, the Web sites that you have chosen do not reflect the Vatican's stance on the Theory of Evolution--2009. (see Official Vatican Website).
I will assume that you are a member of the Kolbe Center, based on your solid beliefs in Creationism, and are opposed to the Theory of Evolution. That is your right. I, on the other hand, happen to believe that Evolution and Creation may be compatible. That is my right.
For Jim R: The "Tree of Life" is a picture in a book that hopes to use methodological naturalism as a means to explain, among other things, the common descent of man. Unfortunaely the last 10-20 years has slapped that away as scientists discover just the opposite.
Darwin made a great stab at understanding origins and used his science methods to build a philosphical case. He was a great scientist for his time. Even he had the intellectual morality to question that supposition: for instance, he believed that the simple cell was the foundation of life. we have gone a wee bit past that in our scientiific evidence. And I keep looking around for a scientifically-provable explanation for the Cambrian Explosion and, although there are some great theories, no evidence. 150 years of looking...oops.
There is not a religious attack on science. I see/hear both sides and the mob scene from Inherit the Earth (albeit total fiction from the real story in Tennessee) is now populated by the Dawkins evolutionists. Let's agree that there are many highly-educated people who can argue for both sides of the debate. There are some great Christian scientists that Darwin and Dawkins et al climbed onto their shoulders to become famous for their own philosphies of science.
A lover of science and intelligent design: C.S. Lewis
David Attenborough has a new BBC DVD (2009) that has an interesting comment on the Cambrian explosion. In Darwin's time, and after, scientists thought there were no fossils in the Pre-Cambrian rocks, so they weren't looking. Then they finally started to show up, fossils of soft multi-celled animals like jellyfish. The soft animals don't often become fossils, but sometimes they do, and they are there to be found. The Cambrian fits well into the tree of life, that is a period of millions of years when many more advanced animals that did form fossils started to show up.
Our first inclination is to see the biblical text as made up of inerrant, propositional theology. But it is the Book of John's Jesus that gently admonishes Nicodemus when the disciple takes the phrase "born again" and tries to apply it to real life in a concrete, literal way.
It cannot be done. Jesus clearly teaches Nicodemus that a fundamentalist approach will not work.
There are apples and there are oranges. But what prevents us from taking those apples and oranges and fixing up a fruit salad?
When I was a child, I spoke, understood and thought about a miraculous snake that could actually talk and lived in a mythical garden.
But when I became a man, I put away those childish things and took up a deeper understanding of my faith tradition.
Seen in this light, Christianity and the science of evolution are perfectly compatible.
And besides, fruit salads can be delicious.
But are Christianity and conservative Christianity compatible?
Jim and James: A little for each of you.
Have you studied the complexity of those Cambrian creatures? Even Darwin could not have rationalized the jump from simple-celled creatures to the highly-complex ones found in the Cambrian. And Gould (no religionist he) took Dawkins down for the count on that notion. Also, those creatures do not indicate any common origin which is what we Intelligent Designers get ansy about. DNA code and mechanical engines within the cell? Evolution is losing its cache.
Is Christianity and conservative Christianity compatible? Absolutely! As someone that evolved (maybe there is some truth to that micro evolution within species) from liberal Catholic to liberal Presbyterian to (reading the Bible and learning the Word of God)which made me a staunch conservative Christian I can attest to its vigor and viability with me and my brethren.
Too many confuse fundamentalism with conservative Christianity. Though I am not arguing against fundamentalism it is not my cup of tea. I reread the Sermon on the Mount after reading James' posting. I'll take that ole time fundamentalism (both speaker and audience) over the gentle condescension I used to feel for those Believers (As my brother once asked me after I moved into my faith journey, "Scott, I thought you were smarter than that!" Guess not. however I will hang my hat with C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton et al at their next (metaphysical) Mensa meeting.
Question for the group: How many meals, and how many homes were rebuilt by southern Baptist churches -- acting independently (but don't they always) after Hurricane Katrina? Compared and contrast to those social gospel churches?
Darwin in his wisdom could see the big picture and help the rest of us understand, at least those willing to hear, but there were many details that he had no way to know because the evidence he needed was not found until later.
Is Christianity and conservative Christianity compatible? I understand a conservative would say they are, but my question was really more for the liberals. As a non-believer, I think I see ways they are not compatible. What do the liberal Christians think?
Jim: As I entered this Wild West world of the blogosphere, and particularly the war between Darwinists and ID'ers, I have found much to be disagreeable: You are not one of those folks. And I thank you for that. I have had the dubious pleasure of being on all sides of theological, scientific, and even business journeys during my adulthoodand, God forbid, having to change my mind when taught by folks with more wisdom than I. I know that the only way I approached my skepticism regarding the Almighty, whether my Christian God or Jefferson's deist, was in those dark moments while in my 20's when, as C.S. Lewis noted, God shouts for our attention.
When I found I walked in the shoes of a giant intellect who moved from agnosticism to faith (in a bunch of small steps often screaming and kicking) I was able to face the intellectual abuse that comes with being a "believer." Now as an Intelligent Designer I have had the stuff thrown at me once again. I haven't received a good argument as to why folks are so shrill (not you) and want to spew vitriole rather than have a reasoned discussion. My instinct, though, is to launch an immediate counterattack: I'll show you my diplomas and let's jump into the mud and start slinging it at each other. Then I take a step back and realize that I will not be doing the Great Commission. Philip Johnson has taught me to look straight at the arguments of the evolutionists without being knee-jerk so that I as a Believer search for the truth where it stands and not cower in "ignorant faith." And so I am one of the few that is searching both sides.
Thanks for your feedback.
The beauty of ID is it is now testable. The world is advancing through technology, and we have reached a point where the experiment can be done to test the difference between Darwin and ID. The key is true genetic sequencing.
Sequencing the entire human genome took several years and millions of dollars, but it came in ahead of schedule and under budget because the technology kept advancing, and is still advancing making it practical to now sequence many different species, and some already have been sequenced. Evolution made its advances through comparing biology, and comparing fossils. Now they also measure DNA which gives a number of what percent of the DNA between two species is the same, such as human and chimp DNA matching 98%. These techniques have been a powerful way to catalog the spectrum of life, but DNA sequencing can do the job better, and present a picture of the relationships between species that has thousands of times more resolution than what we can see through the old methods of fossil and biology comparisons and percent of DNA match.
DNA sequencing can show the individual changes that took place, the order, and how they fit into the tree of life. It is a big job because it requires sequencing the species, uploading large amounts of data to the internet, and writing computer software to scan this data and coming up with the math and logic to map out what the changes mean. The answer is there in the mathematics of the sequences. Is it a tree of common ancestory as predicted by Darwin, or are there contradictions in the sequences that can't be fit into a tree of ancestry and could only be explained by separate creation events or interventions? A simple example of a contradiction would be mathematically proving species A is an ancestor to species B in one part of the sequence, and species B is an ancestor to species A in another part. Evolution couldn't explain something like that, it would require an act of God.
This whole enterprise wasn't possible until now. It is a big job, and traditional science is currently more focused on finding genetic cures for diseases and genetic engineering to enhance our food supply than they are on generating a complete DNA sequenced proof of the tree of life. This leaves the field open to the science departments at Christian colleges. It would give them a chance to prove the issue one way or the other, and it would be a mathematical scientific proof that the rest of the world of science would have to respect and believe because it would be reproducable. All they have to do is scan the data and find the species that show the contradiction and work out the mathematical proof. Other conventional scientists would jump at the chance to reproduce their work and provide the verification.
If the work ends up showing there are no contradictions in the tree of life, than that would also be a great thing for these Christian scientists because they could show their brothers the evidence that Darwin was right in his tree of life, and Christianity could move forward and stop beating itself up on this issue. In the long run, it would be like the church accepting Galileo's planatary orbits. Accepting it ended up being good for the church. Whichever way the evidence turns out, the world and the scientific community would owe the Christian colleges a debt of gratitude for doing such great and valuable scientific work.
Ádam/man (ruddy), in his intial state (first Adam) was nothing more than a 'brute animal' (before the garden, Gen. 2:7):
- had to have been a 'primate' because humans have such a large percentage of primate DNA
- similar physiology and behaviour
- primates are the only mammals to have fingerprints
At some time ruddy wandered into a garden and gained a spirit (God's image, higher consciousness, otherworldly spirit, aura, sixth sense, etc.), which caused him to change (second Adam, Gen. 2:8).
We have God's image, primates do not thus the reason why primates don't hold church services. This happened to a 'single' primate only (ruddy), thus the reason other primates have not, and are not, evolving.
soul = 'animal' principle
spirit = otherworldy, metaphysical
animal = soul
human being = soul + spirit
People who've lost limbs say they can still feel pain (or itch) in the severed area. How can that be, unless something is still there? The higher consciousness, spirit, retains its same shape though the body may change.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.