We tend to think of an "ology" as a science - biology, psychology, cosmology. Certainly when we come to think about parts of the universe we turn to science and scientists for answers. We respect their ability to detach themselves from the object and study it dispassionately applying logic and tried and true techniques to find answers. Part of science, therefore, is to stand above the object - it is "arrogant" in the sense that the scientist is somehow "greater" than the object.
That is certainly the message that was passed down to us from the Enlightenment - the age of reason and it still pervades much of our thinking today.
The danger for the theologian, and indeed any Christian who thinks about God, is that we do so in the same "arrogant" scientific manner in which we project ourselves as somehow "greater" than the subject (God in this case). We see this happening with those who try and reconstruct Biblical texts to fit their own view of the way they think the world should be. We see it in our own lives when we try and manipulate God with "deals" (if I do this, you do that - like a scientific hypothesis - if I push this, then "that" will happen).
One of the good things that has come out of postmodernism is a degree of skepticism about the claims of science to have all the answers and to be totally independent. Postmodernism has reminded us that we are all interconnected - because we are all part of God's creation.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
S&C 3: Evolutionism
In a previous post I was careful to differentiate between a scientific theory - such as the theory of evolution, and religious or philosophical statements made by individuals who believe the scientific theory supports their religious point of view. In the case of those who use the theory of evolution to support an atheistic view of the world I call this EvolutionISM.
One of the "worst" (in the sense of making the illogical leap from scientific to religious statements) proponents of Evolutionism is British scientist and author Richard Dawkins. In books such as "The selfish gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" he repeatedly attempts to put down Christianity. My concern here, though, is not so much attacks on a religion, but the logical consequences of evolutionism.
Dawkins himself in The Selfish Gene (p3) states "...that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal rutheless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But, unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true." He then spends another 300+ pages defending his selfish gene thesis. He tries to claim that he's not advocating "morality based on evolution" but that is exactly what he is doing in that his argument is that everything done ultimately depends on genes trying to replicate themselves. This makes all moral decisions equally "good" or "bad" if they promote the replication of genes! Such a position is a recipe for anarchy. Unfortunately, it is also where we are heading socially as a nation. We see it in the "victimisation" of the criminals. They are treated as victims of their genes (race) and environment. They are treated as though they have a sickness rather than as evil doers.
Sexual behaviours once considered deviant (morally) are now considered acceptable - in part this is because of an overriding atheistic philosophy that it is all in our genes.
Evolutionism should be of major concern to the Christian community as it ultimate promotes a selfish world. It is these philosophies that must be resisted and shown to be lacking in logic that must be resisted. It is not a problem of the science, but of the people who misrepresent it. They are who our attention should be focused on - not the science itself.
One of the "worst" (in the sense of making the illogical leap from scientific to religious statements) proponents of Evolutionism is British scientist and author Richard Dawkins. In books such as "The selfish gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" he repeatedly attempts to put down Christianity. My concern here, though, is not so much attacks on a religion, but the logical consequences of evolutionism.
Dawkins himself in The Selfish Gene (p3) states "...that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal rutheless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But, unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true." He then spends another 300+ pages defending his selfish gene thesis. He tries to claim that he's not advocating "morality based on evolution" but that is exactly what he is doing in that his argument is that everything done ultimately depends on genes trying to replicate themselves. This makes all moral decisions equally "good" or "bad" if they promote the replication of genes! Such a position is a recipe for anarchy. Unfortunately, it is also where we are heading socially as a nation. We see it in the "victimisation" of the criminals. They are treated as victims of their genes (race) and environment. They are treated as though they have a sickness rather than as evil doers.
Sexual behaviours once considered deviant (morally) are now considered acceptable - in part this is because of an overriding atheistic philosophy that it is all in our genes.
Evolutionism should be of major concern to the Christian community as it ultimate promotes a selfish world. It is these philosophies that must be resisted and shown to be lacking in logic that must be resisted. It is not a problem of the science, but of the people who misrepresent it. They are who our attention should be focused on - not the science itself.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
S&C 2: Why is the theory of evolution a problem for some Christians?
To answer the question we need to consider (i) the nature of science and (ii) the nature of the Bible.
1. The nature of science
At its core science is measurement. Without measurement anything that sounds "scientific" is merely speculation. A theory is speculation until measurements are made of something it predicts. When the measurements show something other than what the theory predicted, then the theory is modified. Furthermore, in science measurements must be repeatable.
So, science is limited to that which can be measured. Not surprisingly, this means that it is limited to the physical universe, not the meta-physical or spiritual realm. In terms of God, science can not measure God (there is no ruler long enough) therefore it can say nothing about God's existence or otherwise.
Some scientists, though, have made statements about God that they argue follow from their science. That is, their theories of cosmology or evolution, so they say, prove God does or doesn't exist. When they make these statements they are inferring something and are moving from the realm of science to the realm of religion (or philosophy). Hence, statements to the effect that the theory of evolution proves God doesn't exist are NOT scientific statements, but religious one. I am very careful here to distinguish, therefore, between the scientific theory of evolution, and the philosophy of evolutionISM.
The mistake many Christian's make is not to make the distinction between the science and the philosophy. Too often they attack the science and not the philosophy. A whole industry of "Creation science" has sprung up based on the false premise that the theory of evolution does say God doesn't exist, therefore something must be wrong with the theory. To the contrary, the theory says nothing of the sought. It is just that some people infer that it does. My science background is mainly physics and so I'm not particularly competent to point out the scientific shortcomings of the theory of evolution (all theories have them) - that must be left to more competent scientists. But I can point out the error in inferring that God doesn't exist from the theory of evolution. There is a lot more to be said about Evolutionism and its detrimental effects on society - but that is for another time.
2. The nature of the Bible
Some Christians believe they must oppose the theory of evolution because the Bible teachers creation science. Unfortunately, this misunderstands what the Bible is. The Bible explains "who" created and "why" not "how." I can say this with utmost confidence because the first scientific writings that concentrated on "how" in a science sense were written some 1500 years or more after the last of the Biblical books were written. In other words, the scientific genre of writing is a relatively modern one - we must not think that the writers of the Bible engaged in it.
To give you an idea of why there are creation stories (there are two) in the Bible it would be a good idea for people to compare Biblical creation stories with others that were around in the Middle East 3000 years ago. In the Genesis the common words for Sun and Moon are not used - why? Because the words for Sun and Moon were words for Gods according to the religions of the people surrounding the Hebrews. The Bible very carefully points out the the "light of the day" and "light of the night" are but "mere" creations of the one creator God. This is not science - it is religion.
When we read the Bible we often have to distinguish the genre we are reading - is it narrating a story, is it intended to be historical, is it commands (if so, who to(, is it poetry. One thing we can be sure of and that is it is not science. For example Job 9:6 "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble" and Psalm 75:3 "When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm" suggest the earth has pillars holding it up - at least they should suggest that to the person who reads the Bible as literal scientific fact. Obviously, we all read these as poetic analogies, even though it may have been that the people who first heard these words believed them literally.
The Bible is a wonderful book that teaches me about my faith and my God - it contains many mysteries for me, but one thing I am sure of, and that is that the Bible is not a scientific text book.
1. The nature of science
At its core science is measurement. Without measurement anything that sounds "scientific" is merely speculation. A theory is speculation until measurements are made of something it predicts. When the measurements show something other than what the theory predicted, then the theory is modified. Furthermore, in science measurements must be repeatable.
So, science is limited to that which can be measured. Not surprisingly, this means that it is limited to the physical universe, not the meta-physical or spiritual realm. In terms of God, science can not measure God (there is no ruler long enough) therefore it can say nothing about God's existence or otherwise.
Some scientists, though, have made statements about God that they argue follow from their science. That is, their theories of cosmology or evolution, so they say, prove God does or doesn't exist. When they make these statements they are inferring something and are moving from the realm of science to the realm of religion (or philosophy). Hence, statements to the effect that the theory of evolution proves God doesn't exist are NOT scientific statements, but religious one. I am very careful here to distinguish, therefore, between the scientific theory of evolution, and the philosophy of evolutionISM.
The mistake many Christian's make is not to make the distinction between the science and the philosophy. Too often they attack the science and not the philosophy. A whole industry of "Creation science" has sprung up based on the false premise that the theory of evolution does say God doesn't exist, therefore something must be wrong with the theory. To the contrary, the theory says nothing of the sought. It is just that some people infer that it does. My science background is mainly physics and so I'm not particularly competent to point out the scientific shortcomings of the theory of evolution (all theories have them) - that must be left to more competent scientists. But I can point out the error in inferring that God doesn't exist from the theory of evolution. There is a lot more to be said about Evolutionism and its detrimental effects on society - but that is for another time.
2. The nature of the Bible
Some Christians believe they must oppose the theory of evolution because the Bible teachers creation science. Unfortunately, this misunderstands what the Bible is. The Bible explains "who" created and "why" not "how." I can say this with utmost confidence because the first scientific writings that concentrated on "how" in a science sense were written some 1500 years or more after the last of the Biblical books were written. In other words, the scientific genre of writing is a relatively modern one - we must not think that the writers of the Bible engaged in it.
To give you an idea of why there are creation stories (there are two) in the Bible it would be a good idea for people to compare Biblical creation stories with others that were around in the Middle East 3000 years ago. In the Genesis the common words for Sun and Moon are not used - why? Because the words for Sun and Moon were words for Gods according to the religions of the people surrounding the Hebrews. The Bible very carefully points out the the "light of the day" and "light of the night" are but "mere" creations of the one creator God. This is not science - it is religion.
When we read the Bible we often have to distinguish the genre we are reading - is it narrating a story, is it intended to be historical, is it commands (if so, who to(, is it poetry. One thing we can be sure of and that is it is not science. For example Job 9:6 "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble" and Psalm 75:3 "When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm" suggest the earth has pillars holding it up - at least they should suggest that to the person who reads the Bible as literal scientific fact. Obviously, we all read these as poetic analogies, even though it may have been that the people who first heard these words believed them literally.
The Bible is a wonderful book that teaches me about my faith and my God - it contains many mysteries for me, but one thing I am sure of, and that is that the Bible is not a scientific text book.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
S&C 1: A big question
Over the past few weeks both Christians and non-Christians have asked me questions relating to the interaction of my religious faith and science. Not surprising really given that I've PhD in Physics, yet walk around campus with a cross on my shirt. The questions have included "Do you believe in Evolution?" "Aren't Christianity and Science in conflict?" "Do you believe in Adam and Eve as real people?". Some of the questions are predicated by assumptions about what the person themselves believes - either as a Christian or as a non-Christian. In the non-Christian's situation it appears to me that what they think Christians believe about science is based on their encounters with one or two Christians and perhaps on a bit of news media (especially from the US).
Anyway, I've decided to blog a bit on this and will preface these blogs as S&C blogs. I'll look at the nature of science, the nature of religious belief, what the Bible says and doesn't say about science and more.
Anyway, I've decided to blog a bit on this and will preface these blogs as S&C blogs. I'll look at the nature of science, the nature of religious belief, what the Bible says and doesn't say about science and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
