The war of Science and Christianity- (long but I think worth reading)

"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
-Jeanette Rankin

Hostility abounds when reading both religious articles on science and scientific articles on religion. Any scientist who is religious or makes hypotheses inclusive of a higher Intelligence is certainly subject to verbal or active persecution. Anyone immersed in religious circles who believes particular scientific views contrary to orthodox religious views are perceived very critically, may be considered less spiritual, or the ultimate Christian insult, "liberal."

Of course it is unfair to say that this is always the case, and to do so would be incorrect. We are, however, at war with one another.

This leaves those Christians in the sciences feeling much like metal between hammer and anvil.

What are the causes? Is this war needed? Can it end?

Before addressing these questions, let's look at the history of the S&C War. One could say that science experienced the suppressive nature of religion in the medieval age. One must wonder though, is this truly the beginnings of the S&C War? Certainly natural philosophers (precursory nomenclature for scientists) were persecuted and excommunicated by the church, but on a second glance backward through time, we see that free thinking in general was prohibited by those in power, and this is the real persecution. It expands beyond science and into religion, since the commoners were not allowed to read or own a Bible. In the Age of Reason, we see a beautiful amalgam of science and theology. Sir Isaac Newton made the statement that describes both his beliefs and those of his contemporaries, "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." So the question arises, when did the war begin? The answer seems to point clearly to the Darwinian Revolution.

Here lies the answers to when the S&C War began, why it began, and why it persists.

When The Origin of the Species was written in 1859, there was no animosity between religion and science, which is as it should be, since Christianity should not be concerned with the mechanisms of how God created. However, in the early 1900's, the Christian population believed, as many still do today, that God created everything both separately and immediately. The notion of common descent, especially applied towards men, was contrary to the popular interpretation of inspired Biblical teaching. To the eyes of Christians, Darwinism left no room for God.

What could have happened is this scenario: the Christian population pushes pride aside and asserts that their interpretations of the Bible may or may not be correct. To discover the answer, they objectively look at the evidence and weighing it, pick the more probable paradigm- their current Creation model, or common descent. Of course this is not what happened at all. The Christian population assumed that what they already believed was infallible, and assumed that this apparent attack on religion was the first shot fired in the S&C War, and many viewed other scientific theories of origin such as the Big Bang Theory in the same artillery barrage.

In response to this perceived attack, a few Christians took charge of an offensive against Darwinism. This was manifested in the Scopes Trials of course, but was preceded by Harry Rimmer who founded the “Research Science Bureau” without actually being a scientist, and Ellen White who founded Seventh Day Adventism who’s claims came by "revelation." This latter organization claimed that geological phenomena and fossil findings were produced in full by the Biblical global flood, claimed that the earth was less than 10,000 years old, and therefore not enough time existed for evolution to take place. A very influential writing that subscribes to these views, The Genesis Flood, was written in 1961 by Henry Morris (again, not a scientist) and is still in print. These individuals and their organizations have shaped the views of Christians and antagonized the scientific community for over 80 years. As Christians, we should be absolutely outraged that we have been hoodwinked by this bad science. The general Christian population was and is not a group of scientists who can successfully analyze data from various fields of science, and so these hypotheses that seemed scientifically sound to the non-scientific seemed to eliminated any doubt that the original Christian interpretations of the Bible were correct. Meanwhile, this bad science was attacking the scientific community who did know better and attacking their progress. This fueled the fire for hostile responses and completely eradicated any sense of respect for religion within scientific circles.

Allow me to explain BAD SCIENCE- put very simply it is to put conclusions upon the evidence, rather than derive conclusions from the evidence. An example-those who believe in a young earth expect evidence to support this, and so fantastical theories are derived to explain how this could be. True evidence of the age of the earth are looked at after the conclusion is already reached, and explained away using these extravagant and unrealistic theories. BAD SCIENCE is assuming that the current understanding and interpretation of the Bible supercedes what is clear in nature. (Our interpretation and exegesis of the Bible is a dynamic enterprise, and fallible. Think of the difference in how a biography is written today, and what the four gospels look like. Now think of writing styles at least twice as old as the gospels and consider how different they ought to be. It should be clear that the possibility of misinterpretation is high.)

Let me remark here the sad irony that we Christians who proclaim to be such avid seekers of truth, are not honest with observable evidence!

Is this war needed? Of course not. Yes, Christians should be unyielding in battles regarding our sense of morality. This is not such a war. The Bible is very, very silent on any scientific knowledge, and simply does not address the issues of HOW God acted and continues to act. Does not nature only act because God formed the laws they ceaselessly obey? So If God acts, what is the difference to him whether we judge it to be by natural or supernatural means? In both, God acts! It seems that today it is common for Christians to either dismiss evidence for scientific theories, while others ignore it completely, and still others listen only to the far fetched theories accommodating particular Biblical interpretations.

Can it end? Time alone will tell. I think that as long as Christians refuse to look at all the evidence without bias and from there make an informed and intelligent decision (I'm not saying the beliefs must change), we will never be respected within the scientific community. That is what we must do to end the S&C War. The scientific community for their part must diminish the hostility towards those who hold religious views.

The animosity against us [Christians] must fade, and we must stop giving them reason for such animosity.

NERDS R US

The fourteenth of March is today
St. Pat's Day is three days away
But much more preferred
For the taste of the nerd
Is National Pie Day HOORAY!

3.14.08

Human/Divine Endeavors

So in my science and religion class we're having a few lectures from a professor from the Bible department. He mentioned that he thought of science as a human endeavor, while theology was a divine endeavor. I must say, I couldn't disagree more.

The Bible is possibly and possibly not directly from God. Nature most surely is directly from God. The "Word of God" was written down by men. Nature was created by the WORDS of God.

So is the study of the Bible the divine endeavor or is science (the study and attempt to understand nature) the divine endeavor? You could say that in one sense they are both human enterprises, because both are man's efforts, and man's methods of study. On the other hand, it could be said that they are both divine enterprises because they both have the goals of understanding God.

Of course, as is sadly most often the case, science is undertaken without thought to the fact that by understanding how nature works we are understanding how God works. But similarly, the Bible can be studied for cultural and historical relevance, without any intent to discover divine truth from it.

The Choice to Believe

Here's the question of the day: Is belief a choice? I ask this because according to most people's interpretations of Christianity, salvation is based on belief in Jesus.
It seems to me that people have no choice as to whether they will believe something or not. There are lots of decisions that lead to a belief, but the actual choice to believe is nonexistent. For instance, say you're sitting in your living room, and someone comes up to you and claims that there's a dragon squatting behind your couch. Do you have the choice to believe this claim? Could you if you desired strongly enough believe it? Of course not. It's not a choice, because your brain will not allow you to think that this is true based on your prior knowledge and ability to reason. The choice that is presented to you is to ask for evidence or to look for evidence yourself of this claim, but there is no choice to believe. This is a significant conclusion when applied to Christianity. If the popular view is correct, then although we have no choice as to whether or not we will believe in Jesus, we are told to do so, and told that if we do not believe, we will not receive eternal life. The choices we actually do have are to ask God and others for evidence of the claims of Christianity and to look for evidence ourselves. Beyond this we are powerless. We will believe what our brains can rationalize based on the existing evidence. So, if someone looks with all their ability for Christian evidences, but doesn't find enough to convince oneself, then can God hold this person accountable and damn him? Either the answer is yes, or belief is not what God bases salvation on.
The things that seem reasonable to be held accountable for are for lazy thinking, unwillingness to search for truth, and apathy. What seems apparent is that God should look with scorn upon these traits, yet here's the clutch point: while many non-Christians do not believe because of these traits, many Christians are believers due to these very things. Which should God reward, those who believe God because that's what they were told to believe, or those who didn't believe in God because that's what they were told to believe? Which should God reward, those who blindly accept Christianity without reason, or those who assume Christianity is false without reason? Which should God reward, those who believe in God because it's easy, or those who are atheists because it is easy? Neither would seem to be the fair answer, yet in judging these two categories of people, popular Christianity of course favors those who happened to be raised in a cultural or family setting where the suppositions of Christianity were assumed to be true, and belief is accepted and expected in others.