03.02.08
Apx. 99.9% sure I’m right about this…
Let’s try to put it as simply as possible and see if everyone can understand it, shall we?
Science has nothing to do with “God”. Science deals solely with the empirical universe as it may be observed, recorded, studied, tested, etc., utilizing whatever tools may be created to do so, as well as our innate human abilities (though educated, certainly, honed and refined). Science does not deal with anything that lies outside its purview, nor does it make statements—let alone judgments—about any such thing. Scientists, whatever their personal feelings or beliefs, whatever they might choose to express as a personal opinion, do not interject religion or philosophy into their actual work because doing so would taint the science.
The theory of evolution says nothing about whether or not “God” exists, and therefore makes no claims regarding the qualities, characteristics, or modi operandi of “God”. Should a scientist express her or his opinion regarding “God”, her or his opinion is still incapable of reflecting on her or his actual scientific research. That is because science does not deal with unfalsifiable matters (matters which cannot be tested for empirical validity), and as the existence of “God” can neither be proved nor disproved then “God” must be considered an unfalsifiable matter. This is not a shortcoming of science or the scientific method; it is a remarkable strength. Whereas endless speculation and typically unresolvable arguments over hypotheticals belong to philosophy and theology, to the realm of science belongs only that which may bear the strictly vetted tools and critically maintained rules of science.
Naturally, the tools and rules of science may be brought to bear on any subject presented as empirical, falsifiable, and subject to tests of its veracity. Even when it is resistant to change, science does not turn away from a valid avenue of discovery because it may realize a fault in some long-standing theory. If one is capable of providing some real-world credentials and a compelling outline, and if one’s presentation includes a thorough grounding in current scientific understanding, then scientists will very likely pay attention to a new idea or theory. With a few sad exceptions, only the ignorant, the crackpots, the cranks and the trolls get short shrift from the community of scientists. And where the scientific community has originally failed to recognize a valid offering, time has—thanks to members of that same community—often vindicated the one who brought that offering. But never has science found something to be a fact or valid theory that at its base was unscientific, unfalsifiable. This is not because of some conspiracy against those who don’t know the secret handshake and password, it is simply and only because science has nothing to do with that which cannot bear the application of science’s tools and rules.
Science simply means “to know”, and knowledge is subject to revision as new, empirical, falsifiable data dictates it. Certainty is measured in percentages reaching ever closer to 100%—with ever-mounting evidence, the successful passing of tests after tests, more and more data, etc.—without ever attaining it. Science ends at 100%, for there is nothing to do after that, nothing more to know. So when someone asks a scientist trained in physics specific questions about this or that facet of, say, the theory of special relativity, she or he may shrug and say, “We just don’t know yet. Isn’t it exciting!”, exhibiting in the response the main trait found in scientists everywhere: undying curiosity yoked to the perpetual drive to discover, hindered only by the frailties of the human organism.
So why is it of late that some scientists are seen to be attacking religion, and why is it that some religious people are calling the theory of evolution inherently atheistic? What’s going on? If science has nothing to say about matters outside its purview (and religion is demonstrably outside its purview), and the theories of science cannot in themselves address religion due to the unfalsifiable nature of x religion’s primary assertions (its metaphysical tropes), then how is it we are in the middle of a culture war with a sampling of scientists on one side and a bunch of very religious people on the other? Who threw the first stone?
I do not have enough time or energy to devote to writing such a history. However, A.D. White, the founder and first president of Cornell, a professor of history, did have the wherewithal to write about the subject in the last decade of the 1800s. His work, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, is relevant today. By simply recounting history, White explodes the idea that somehow it was Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that initiated the charge for some sort of godless revolution hitherto unimaginable. After discussing the early concepts of evolution “among the Chaldeans, the Hebrews, the Greeks, the Romans”, White notes some of the theological issues that arose in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, and concludes the second part of Chapter 1 by saying that
By the middle of the nineteenth century the whole theological theory of creation - though still preached everywhere as a matter of form - was clearly seen by all thinking men to be hopelessly lost: such strong men as Cardinal Wiseman in the Roman Church, Dean Buckland in the Anglican, and Hugh Miller in the Scottish Church, made heroic efforts to save something from it, but all to no purpose. That sturdy Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon honesty, which is the best legacy of the Middle Ages to Christendom, asserted itself in the old strongholds of theological thought, the universities. Neither the powerful logic of Bishop Butler nor the nimble reasoning of Archdeacon Paley availed. Just as the line of astronomical thinkers from Copernicus to Newton had destroyed the old astronomy, in which the earth was the centre, and the Almighty sitting above the firmament the agent in moving the heavenly bodies about it with his own hands, so now a race of biological thinkers had destroyed the old idea of a Creator minutely contriving and fashioning all animals to suit the needs and purposes of man. They had developed a system of a very different sort….
But A.D. White also believed that
In welding together into noble form, whether in the book of Genesis, or in the Psalms, or in the book of Job, or elsewhere, the great conceptions of men acting under earlier inspiration, whether in Egypt, or Chaldea, or India, or Persia, the compilers of our sacred books have given to humanity a possession ever becoming more and more precious; and modern science, in substituting a new heaven and a new earth for the old - the reign of law for the reign of caprice, and the idea of evolution for that of creation - has added and is steadily adding a new revelation divinely inspired.
As an educated and science-minded person, White believed that theology and science could be, and should be, reconciled. But he knew, too, that there could be no turning back from what science was learning of the world, that to turn back would be to turn against the flow of our better nature. To interpret scripture literally could never be more than a failure, both of the mind and—should you be so inclined—the spirit.
Those who would turn back (think of those in Florida and Kansas and elsewhere) are always the ones to throw the first stone. Scientists would rather not have to muck about in the fantasy world of creationists, but creationists won’t leave science alone. Theologians and religious leaders, religious adherents who shudder when fundamentalists cry out in public, have not truly risen to the challenge, doubtless because they fear that to do so would make their own faith look bad or sully it by proximity. This is a shame. Science, having nothing to do with religion by nature, has been made a religious issue that apparently only scientists, atheists, and a very few religious people see fit to deal with. Naturally, the scientists are accused of having an ungodly agenda, the atheists are used as proof of science’s ungodliness, and the religious people who side with science are seen as damnable liberals who are, themselves, lacking in genuine faith.
But it is in fact the creationists (and the promoters of so-called “intelligent design”) who are the problem, who create the problem, who sustain and add fuel to the problem. They do not seem to grasp that to teach someone the facts is not to indoctrinate her or him into godlessness or evil, whereas to indoctrinate someone into a religion that denies the facts is certainly a bad thing. Fundamentalism and other nonsense is not righteously religious, it’s thoroughly foolish. It may seem unfortunate to some religious people, but the onus is in fact on them to adapt to the facts or perish. The world is not the fantasy land that our ancestors often believed it was, it is something much greater and more amazing. You do not have to be godless or satanic in order to accept the facts of the world. (Cherished psalms, for instance, are not made less poetically beautiful or meaningful.) But what you have to do is give up on absurd literal interpretations of so-called sacred texts, you have to give up on certain naïve conceptions of “God”. If there is a “God”, she/he/it (or they) is much further from our oversimplified understanding than we’ve realized, and those who came before us were misled by their (understandable) ignorance. Even a hundred years ago (and, actually, quite a great many more years than that) there were people who understood that much. Science continues, in its non-theistic fashion, to prove the point. So the question is, why are so many people afraid to embrace that fact today? What is really so terrifying about an even greater universe than religions have made?
subodot said,
March 6, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Moody,
There is a huge difference between Christian fundamentalist teaching and mainstream religions. I think mainstream religions can offer a lot to anyone. In the interest of science Christian moderates, manstream Jews and other popular belief sytems all concur that evolution as science presents is true is all correct. The bible while inspired by God has been modified so we are best to appreciate messages of personal experience and growth. Only fundamentalis extremests really think the bible is literal truth. They are however posing a vocal challenge to science on many grounds. Christian bookstores even sell books about how to win in these debates. Any mainstreamer is asking - what ever happened to the melting pot?
Faith is like drugs, a little bit can be good for you. Too much can kill you.
subodot said,
March 19, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Moody - there is a report tonight on ABC Nightline called “Because the Bible Tells Me So?” Which talks about fundies that give tours to museums and explain it in biblical terms.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/story?id=4467337&page=1
You may find this amusing or revolting. If you aren’t up for the report as it’s aired the link provides the story.
Moody said,
April 20, 2008 at 8:44 am
Subodot:
I felt that I was fairly clear in my post that it is especially the fundies/creationists that I am going after, but that the adherents of mainstream religion do deserve whatever collateral damage occurs to their religion due to their lack of response against those F/Cs, who endlessly declare themselves to be the true and rightful representatives of their faith.
So long as the adherents of mainstream religion remain quiet about it, those F/Cs will continue to make their claims of righteous representation. Worse, when mainstream religious leaders play nice with those F/Cs publicly, they cannot fail to send the message that the mainstream considers them to be family.
It is the religious community who, explicitly or tacitly, have attacked the scientific community and its findings (which, as must always be noted, have nothing implicitly, inherently or essentially to do with “God”). You can state that it was a minority of vocal F/Cs who did it and not you or your community, but that’s not how it looks to me—save insofar as I know you and have heard what you think. What I want to ask you is this: How long until I hear a loud and sustained outcry against the F/Cs from a majority of religious people? Until I do, I am going to suspect that there is some disingenuous behavior being widely practiced by the religious majority.
subodot said,
April 20, 2008 at 11:19 pm
You may find it interesting to note that with the Pope’s visit he did have something to say about fundies and creationists. While he was very nice about it he did say something about fragmented Christianity. Just think Moody - one of the world’s most reliable theologians in mainstream religion has spoken up. Sadly I wonder if they understood him? Here’s the details:
Ecumenical Meeting at St. Joseph’s Church, New York (April 18, 2008)
“………………Too often those who are not Christians, as they observe the splintering of Christian communities, are understandably confused about the Gospel message itself. Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called “prophetic actions” that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of “local options”. Somewhere in this process the need for diachronic koinonia - communion with the Church in every age - is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23). “
“…………..My dear friends, the power of the kerygma has lost none of its internal dynamism. Yet we must ask ourselves whether its full force has not been attenuated by a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies, which, in alleging that science alone is “objective”, relegate religion entirely to the subjective sphere of individual feeling. Scientific discoveries, and their application through human ingenuity, undoubtedly offer new possibilities for the betterment of humankind. This does not mean, however, that the “knowable” is limited to the empirically verifiable, nor religion restricted to the shifting realm of “personal experience”. ……….
He his very nicely saying all you creationist and endtime folks are making up your own stuff and getting people seeking God fairly confused. I know Moody you have that great vocabulary and may appreciate many of Ratzinger’s statements. If you are interested at all complete transcripts are available at EWTN.com
Peace!
Moody said,
April 22, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I would certainly be surprised if Ratzinger didn’t know his Augustine. Of course, his idea of a united religion is, ultimately if not presently, Catholicism, and I can assure you that it’s never going to happen so long as there are multitudes of people in the world with myriad ideas/ideals/goals. But he does well to speak out against the fundies/creos. Though, methinks, he should come out a bit more sternly.
As for his theological rational… You know, Subodot, that I can’t but find them wanting. However well-crafted or clever, I’d find them equal at best to ideas about any other fiction. Substitute “God and His Angels” with “Ilúvatar and His Ainur” and I think you’ll see what I mean. I can see there being psychological relevance to any myth or story, but I don’t think its value as such is indicative of its empirical reality. Also, I take issue with Ratzinger’s stab at secularism and scientific empiricism. Certainly there are things that can be “known” that cannot (presently) be tested (for instance, dreams rich in deeply symbolic psychological material that can only be gotten at by the dreamer), but we don’t let those things rule our lives or spawn strains of wishful thinking that might infect our minds with delusion, at least if we are being smart we don’t. We should attempt to test everything, and not give up on the attempt even if (like Dark Matter/Energy or quantum mechanics) it does not easily give itself to our desire to suss out its essence, its secrets, its reality. We should persist in our attempts to know, even if the result is not always heartening or cheerful.
From my perspective, religious leaders peddle comfort from one hand and fear from the other without any grounding, which leaves it all up to them to pick and choose the meaning or import of their wares, and I don’t doubt for one second that those wares reflect the personal life and personality of each given leader to the betterment or detriment of their material. Secularists may have arguments, but I’d sooner partake in one of them than in some abstruse, esoteric, highfalutin’ confabulation in re “God and Morality”, let alone have to sit through some soporific service or frightful sermon where I am told what to think as someone wags a book at me. And here’s the thing. So far as I am concerned, it is all secular whether those peddlers want to believe so or not—because there is no “God”, and morality, like ethics, is a human invention born of experience. It is not divine mandate or holy threats that make me moral or ethical. I have morals and ethics because the morals and ethics I adhere to (imperfectly at times) make sense to me in broadly applicable ways. A person would have to be an utter cad or selfish fool not to understand why, say, it’s better to be kind than cruel. And considering some of the inhumanly sadistic acts perpetrated at the alleged behest of “God” (or “the gods” [name your time or place]), well…. Well, people will often use any excuse, won’t they? And then they’ll say that they were on the side of the divine or the state or whatever, and in the long run their acts will be chalked up to humans behaving badly… without any god in site to take the blame.
And here is where some reader will bring up Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and claim that the greatest grief came about through the establishment of atheistic rule. And, naturally, I have to point out that Hitler is a bad example because he was Christian. Stalin? Not so much as people think. Pol Pot? Religious upbringing. My point is not actually that religion was the cause that drove these men, but rather that they happened to behave as humans have from time immemorial, whether religious or not. Still, religion does have a rather bad track record when it comes to keeping its hands free of bloodstains. Even Buddhist sects have engaged in warfare. But in the end, no omnipotent leader, whether religious or not, has succeeded in keeping the peace for more than a few decades. And, in the end, no god has ever stopped the violence, though some have certainly encouraged or sanctioned it. It will take humans, coöperating and working hard, to find the peaceful way.
Anyway, I’m getting tired and my writing is starting to get bogged down. So. Adieu for now.
subodot said,
May 20, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Moody,
I understand your sentiments quite well. Morality itself is based on emphathy which is a trait all people are born with and has no impact on whether people need a religion to be good or not. Some however do, and I fear their behavior if they did not find the constraint of religious morality to keep them in line.
Ratzinger would not be more stern in his statements because he is a leader of a church that teaches it’s members to be kind, and tolerant of others. In his history he has a reputation for being overly stern and was nick named “the Vatican’s Watchdog” or “Rottweiler” because of his adamant defenses of Catholic theology. No doubt he knows his Augustine and every other scholar of the early church well.
He does not pick and choose as you referred to but instead instructs Catholics we are not able to pick and choose parts of the faith that we like while discarding the bigger picture. If we are to be Catholic we need to accept the whole dogma of it. If there was any picking and choosing here I think I just picked a part from one of his many addresses during the visit. So that would be my responsibility for not wanting to ramble for an extremely lengthy time.
It gives me a certain joy to see you do at least afree with his speaking out against the fundie splinter groups even if you are left “wanting” from it. Ratzinger is one world class theologian. He has written over 40 books, sat on Vatican II Counsel, was a theology professor, and has written numerous journal articles. There are few religious scholars who have attained the same level of understanding of scripture as him. It speaks well of the church who elected him. The fundie movement has insulted RCC(Roman Catholic Church) on many levels for many years. With regular comments about RCC being the great whore of Babylon as foretold in rRevealations, and the common ritualistic practice makes us pagan, and that we indulge in idol worship, and more, we have all heard this stuff. Previous Popes were very good in their roles but I think to really dispel the opinions that fundie’s spread the church has to have a “Bible Master” in it’s top job to fend off the attacks and dispel all the myths. In that regard he has done a wonderful job. I have recently begun reading “Truth and Tolerance” Ratzinger (2004) where he addresses the Christian religion in the context of all world religions. Yes it is clear he would like all the world to be Catholic, but he doesn’t condemn anyone just because they aren’t. I will comment further as I get deeper into the book. Just the beginning of it has me amazed. Ratzionger cites so many religious scholars and Bible verses he is truly a scholarly theologian who could dance circles around any splinter group teacher, all the while being a loving teacher who is accepting of many epople’s thoughts.
You know Moody I was not in any church for about 30 years. It’s been a year now since I decided to return to my cradle religion. One of the most important factors was the solid theology it presents. In fundie churches there may be some unity, but there are so many splinter groups just making up their own stuff(Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, FLDS, Moonies, and that whole “Left Behind” group) it kind of made me seek for correct answers. Often in my seeking I found myself at a catholic site reading what seemed far more correct and somewhat less manipulative than what the fundies were propagandizing about. Intelectually as far as scripture teachings went I tended to agree with RCC more than any other church. They have a long history and are a lot more cautious about things because of it. RCC has of course a blood spattered history I could not deny it, but they have changed and adopted views that are fairly harmonious with consistant theology, and modern world scientific discoveries. Yes there are a few areas of conflict but they aren’t building a museum of lies regarding creation either.
When Ratzinger came to visit I had a fear he was going to do or say something that would make me regret my choice to return to church. Instead I was very impressed. Not so much a Rottweiler at all, but a gentle granfatherly type. I learned so much from hearing and studying his addresses here. Before he came I felt some cautious reserve about him after reading oblt one of his many books I guess I did notreally know him very well. When he left I could fully embrace him without reserve. They call him Papa and by the time he left I was ready to call him Papa too.
but Moody, for you and your thoughts I understand and agree with muc of what you say. Just because I am back at church I have at least 30 years of atheism/agnosticism under my belt. I think it’s important to be honest with yourself. I think it’s important to own and embrace your own beliefs and attitudes. To me, I find it easier to admire an honest atheist than a deceptive Christian. So many people seem to pretend a belief system for various reasons but mostly for a feeling of belonging. The problem is some people have no tolerance for others. So many fundies are so bent on converting others. They have a drive and a need to do so because in convincing others they convince themselves, and the root of that is that they really don’t believe it themselves. And they fail to acknowledge the facts of science and life. I think a person can have quite a healthy spirituality and not believe in any diety. I respect people who are “real” to themselves a lot more than people who repeat a bunch of dogma they really don’t buy or understand in depth. Those are the kind that make religion look bad in the bigger picture and every healthy religion suffers from that type of person moreso than an atheist or agnostic.