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.

The notorious issue of pain and suffering

Here's an issue hotly debated for centuries, and still goes unanswered. The issue: if God is good and all powerful, why do bad things happen? Is it because God is indeed not good, or is it because, though God is good, he is incapable of stopping bad things from happening?

Well, the problem seems divided into two categories, one of which is rather simple, the other a bit more complex. Either a bad event occurs due to a human cause, or a bad event occurs due to a non-human cause.

The first case is easily explained in a way that fits inline with the notion of a loving and all-powerful God. Or rather, potentially all powerful God. The truth is that in giving fickle humans freewill, God donated some of his power to us, limiting himself, and empowering us. You see, if we choose to disobey our moral code, God could not possibly stop us if he has truly given us free will. If God were to stop us, then we never had the chance to choose good from evil, which is to say, we never had free will to begin with. If we were not given free will, our lives would be akin to this analogy. I'm sitting in the testing center taking the GRE, and Stephen Hawking is sitting beside me. Before I click on an answer, I tell him, and if it's right, he lets me click. If I'm wrong, S.H. takes the mouse from me and clicks on the right answer. In the end I score perfectly. But who really took the test? Was I given the choice of which answer to pick? No. I was able to look at the choices, tell S.H. which I would have chosen, but S.H. took the test. I had in reality no choice. The right answer would always be chosen. Similarly, if God maintained his power, which I have no doubt he could do if he desired, we would never have choices to do right or wrong, and thus no free will. Since obviously I for one have sinned, this demonstrates that God has given up some of his power to me. Unfortunately, we often misuse this power. This is what leads to these bad occurrences due to human behavior. God will not stop us from hurting one another. Likewise, he will not stop us from helping one another. This is the beauty of God's plan, that contains both dark and light hues in our lives, that allows us to experience the contrasting stuff of hate, love, rudeness, kindness, etc.
I can imagine the counterargument- "Forget contrast, I think the world would be a better place if it was filled with Mother Teresa's." However, the flaws in this argument are abundant. First, if the world were perfect, there would be no need for M.T. to fulfill, and thus no one would experience her love and kindness. Second, even if it wasn't paradoxical to have such a need in a perfect world, would anyone really feel loved by, or feel respect for M.T. had she been working under compulsion, much like a slave?

The second category is indeed difficult to explain, if nothing more than the opposite views to everything. Without ocean storms that cause tsunamis, the earth would quickly become an arid and uninhabitable planet. Without bacteria's ability to mutate into destructive organisms, bacteria crucial to our survival would not have been able to survive through the ages. Without plate tectonics that lead to earthquakes and volcanic activity, we would not have continents, fresh soil and nutrients, and a planet with a habitable atmosphere. So while these things seem very malevolent to those directly affected, they are celebrated by the rest of humanity.
So it would seem that the following are the possible conclusions one can draw from natural disasters (which I am including biological ailments as well). 1) God does not exist. 2) God does exist, he created the world, and now he's watching it spin. 3) God created the world and will intervene when we ask for it. 4) God created the world, and everything has a purpose (in other words, those who suffer got what they deserved).
I cannot convince myself there is no God, or that there is a malevolent God. I won't discuss this option here. The other three I will discuss, in reverse order.

I counter this argument with two simple things: First, we all know good people, more than that, incredible people, who have suffered greatly due to causes not human in origin. Second, Jesus himself said (in Luke 13) that people who had recently suffered were no worse than those He was speaking to. This seems to counter any idea that bad things happen because God wanted them to happen.

The second possibility seems plausible, and may in part be accurate. However, anyone who's been struck by lightning didn't necessarily have time to ask for God's intervention. The fact that this is usually the case with disasters seems to indicate that this is not the way God works. The fact that sometimes in regard to a disaster with a longer duration (i.e. cancer) we ask for help, and yet it doesn't arrive. This also seems to indicate that this explanation is inaccurate.

Our last option is that God takes a hands-off approach to our world. As stated previously, many if not all of these disasters benefit the majority of mankind. The earth is so extraordinary, so regenerative, so stubborn to carry life, it is, for me at least, not difficult to imagine God creating matter, watching planets and galaxies form, watch as earth was formed around the sun, watch as life began to develop, and see how it led ultimately to man, saying, "It's good." Everything we know about the origins of the universe seem to tell us that God did something similar to setting up a sequence of dominoes and tipping the first one over. This gives leeway to bad things happening to the good and bad alike. Credence is also given to this notion in recognizing our own capabilities. God gave us the most powerful tool in order to deal with what could and often do become catastrophes. We have solved many of these problems, and are continuing to increase our abilities to protect ourselves. This is another way that God showed us that he loved us- by giving us these capabilities.

These conclusions, I'm sure, will be in stark contrast to many if not most others'. However, this is where I find the evidence leading. It, by the way is not necessarily what I would wish to be the truth, as I would much rather have the idea that God's angels are ready to stop my electron polarity next time there's a thunderstorm, or provide a distraction for sharks if I were to fall in the ocean. This would obviously be more preferable than the idea that God gave me a certain set of capabilities and it's my responsibility to use them and keep myself out of trouble. So if anyone would like to convince me I'm wrong about God's seemingly aloof characteristics, I'm very willing to listen.

To Dave

So Dave has the flu. too bad. I wrote him a deeply moving song about it, but since so many others have the flu, i'll share it. get the kleenexes ready.

Hi Ho, you've got the flu.
You know what it do?
It makes you spew.

Ode to the South

Ode to the South
To those in the south, this paean's for you,
To all of those proud of their neck's red hue.
Who cares you can't talk right, or read well for that,
Who cares that fried foods make you look a bit fat!
You think well of your okra, hominy and grits,
Though I can't agree- it gives my throat fits.
Who cares that your grandpappies lost the great war,
although by now that flag's an eyesore.
You're where the folks are friendly and kind,
Unlike the north, according to your unbiased mind.
Only one thing that bothers me, that gets me each time,
That I consider just a little less than crime:
Oh you Southern girls and boys,
Please quit saying it, "Illinois"!

-Dan Sewell