Why don’t the disciples’ get it? Why are their hearts hardened?
Today’s Gospel lesson takes place immediately after Jesus fed the multitude on the hillside beside the lake of Galilee. The disciples, who had nothing: no food, watched Jesus take a little boy’s lunch of five biscuits and two little fish and produce enough bread and fish to satisfy 20,000 people. After this tremendous miracle, we are told that Jesus immediately commanded the disciples to leave and head across the lake. There is a reason for this command. The disciples didn’t necessarily want to go, but Jesus didn’t want them to come under the influence of the crowd. In the Gospel of John, we are told that the crowd wanted Jesus to become King and rule over them. Jesus knew the disciples would probably join in on that chorus. This is something they want. They want Jesus to be the promised Messiah who will issue in God’s Kingdom in a military way. They want power and prestige and status. Jesus knows this, and He doesn’t want His disciples to be taken in with it. So, He commands the disciples to leave–sternly. The disciples depart, and Jesus dismisses the crowd Himself.
Then, Jesus goes up on the mountain to pray. Mark records Jesus going out to pray three times. Every time Jesus goes out to pray, it is in the midst of a crisis. The first time was after Jesus miracles in Capernaum where they wanted to make Him king. The last time is in the Garden of Gethsemane where He faced the cross. This time, Jesus goes out to pray because once again, they are seeking to make Him something He was not destined to be. He must go spend time with the Father to become focused on His task–the redemption of the world.
The text now gets a little ambiguous, at least when it comes to the time frame. It says that Jesus looked out across the lake and saw the disciples straining at the oars because they were facing an adverse wind. It then says that late in the night Jesus came to them. This seems to indicate that the disciples had been struggling against this wind all night long. They had been rowing and rowing and rowing, but making no headway. They are completely and totally exhausted. Perhaps they are worried and scared, although we don’t get that from the text. It very well may be that they are frustrated, but not scared. We don’t know.
What we do know is that the Gospel writer Mark reports to us that Jesus came to them
walking on the water.
Did you catch that? Walking on the water.
Let me say that one more time. Jesus came to them walking on the water.
I am taking a moment to emphasize this because we generally take this statement in one of two ways. Either we chalk this story up to complete and utter mythology because people cannot walk on water and break the laws of nature. Or we have heard it so many times that we are not shocked by it at all. Either way, it has lost its ability to make us marvel and wonder, and frankly, I think it should fill us with awe and wonder.
But let me take a moment to deal with those of you who might be chalking this story up to complete mythology. You might say rather straightforwardly that science has shown that there are laws of nature that cannot be broken. A man walking on water is a scientific impossibility. Therefore, this event did not happen. Rather than deal with the physics of weight distribution on water and buoyancy, let me challenge your premise–that the universe has shown that there are laws which govern our universe that cannot be broken. You see, as far as we know at this point, science has shown us that there are two ways of looking at things that work very, very well. There are a set of laws which work great at the level of the tiniest of particles–atoms and quarks and neutrons and electrons, etc. Then, you have another set of laws which work very well at the level of large things–like people and planets and galaxies. This is called the theory of relativity. However, when you try to take the laws that work well for small things and apply it to big things, the laws break down. Similarly, when you try to take the laws that work for big things and apply them to little things, the laws break down. All this is to say that, at this time–and for the foreseeable future, we don’t really know all the laws which are governing our universe. It very well may be possible for a person to walk on water, but we just haven’t figured it out yet. And, if–as this story purports to show–Jesus is not only a human but is divine. Well, then you have the One who created those laws showing just how the universe is supposed to work. And if that is the case, then indeed, we should be filled with awe and wonder.
Let’s return to the text, shall we? Mark says Jesus intended to pass them by. This seems rather callous. This seems like Jesus is indifferent to the disciples’ plight. But we need to read this in the context of Mark showing us throughout his book who Jesus is. This phrase is a reference to several passages in the Old Testament where God revealed Himself to humanity.
Exodus 33:19-23: 19And God said, ‘I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you the name, “The Lord”; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20But’, he said, ‘you cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live.’ 21And the Lord continued, ‘See, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock; 22and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; 23then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen.’
Exodus 34:6: 6The Lord passed by him, and proclaimed, ‘The Lord, the Lord,
a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
1 Kings 19:11: He said, ‘Go out and stand on the mountain before the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.’
Mark is showing us something very significant is taking place. The Lord is intending to pass by. This is solidified very shortly as Jesus responds to the disciples reaction to seeing Him. The disciples react in utter in fear. They scream at the top of their lungs thinking a water spirit has appeared to send them to their deaths.
But Jesus says, “Take heart, έγώ είμί (ego eimi), do not be afraid.” Yes, you heard something rather funny there. You heard the original Greek, and I put that in there purposely. The English translation here is “It is I,” but that Greek phrase is a loaded phrase. You see, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, whenever God reveals Himself to humankind, He uses the words έγώ είμί or I AM. So, let’s revisit this statement by Jesus using the Old Testament as our guide. Jesus says, “Take heart, I AM, do not be afraid.”
The Gospel writer Mark is unequivocally telling us, this is God incarnate walking on the water, and when God incarnate gets into the boat, the winds cease. The disciples are amazed. Their amazement is similar to their amazement the first time Jesus calmed a storm on the sea of Galilee. It’s an amazement of “who is this?” And Mark tells us, they did not understand about the loaves because their hearts were hardened.
Why were the disciples’ hearts hardened? Why couldn’t they get it? Let’s recap a few things: Jesus calmed the storm on the sea of Galilee; He cast out a tremendously evil spirit that no one else could control; He healed a woman who had been bleeding for 12 years that no doctor could cure; He brought a dead girl back to life; He was constantly healing people from their diseases; He just fed 20,000 people, and the disciples still didn’t get it? I mean what in the world is it going to take for these guys to understand who Jesus is and what He is here for?
Just thought I might add: how long is it going to take us to understand who Jesus is and what He came for? Oh, yeah, it’s easy to look at those disciples and wonder why they just don’t get it. It’s easy for us to say, “Geez, guys, you are there all throughout Jesus’ ministry and mission, and you still don’t get it. What is your problem?”
It’s an easy question to ask of someone else, but it is much harder to ask of ourselves. Yet, I think we need to ask it of ourselves because I don’t think we much like to contemplate what it means if Jesus really is God who came to earth. I don’t think we much like to wrestle with the idea that there is a God who was willing to come down and visit us and reveal Himself to us–and then call us to follow Him. Why would I say such a thing? Because if Jesus is who He says He is; if Jesus is who the Gospel writers say He is, then either I reject Him as absolutely crazy, or I fall down on my knees and worship Him.
But I don’t want to think Him crazy because He teaches some fabulous things. The whole love your enemies thing is a pure stroke of genius that had not been embraced by anyone in the world until Jesus brought it forth. Jesus taught some very good moral ideals–so I can’t reject those.
But I don’t necessarily want to see Him as Lord and God. Because if I see Him as Lord and God, then I truly have to change the way I operate in the world. I have to actually love my enemies. I have to carve out time to worship. I have to dig into my pocketbook and give up some of what I earn. I have to spend time witnessing to Jesus, and I have to stop pursuing all those things that I believe will give me meaning and purpose and satisfaction. I would rather do all of those things than really and truly see Jesus as my Lord and Savior.
Why did the disciples have hardened hearts? For the same reasons our hearts are hardened. They didn’t want to see Jesus as God incarnate. They wanted a political ruler and person of power. They wanted Jesus to fulfill all their wants and desires. They didn’t want Jesus. They wanted the things that Jesus could give them. Similarly, oftentimes we use Jesus to get the things we want instead of wanting Jesus. Our hearts are so hard because we want to pursue the things of the world instead of the things of God. And each and every one of us are guilty of this. All of us.
But what if Jesus wouldn’t give up on the disciples? What if Jesus wouldn’t give up on you? What if He longed to have you follow Him? What if He longed to have you trust Him? What if He longed to bring you unto Himself because He wanted you to live forever the way you were intended to live–the way you were intended to love–the way you were intended to be. What if He believed it was His mission to break your hardened heart and bring you unto Himself? Do you think He would accomplish it by repeatedly telling you what to do? Do you think He would accomplish it by doing all sorts of miracles to sway your opinion? Those miracles would certainly be awesome, but they didn’t sway the disciples. They wouldn’t sway us either.
But Jesus didn’t choose those ways to break our hearts of stone. He didn’t use those ways to force us to believe or trust in Him. Instead of using coercion or fear, Jesus used love. He stretched out His arms and died for you when you least deserved it.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world may be saved through Him.
The disciples were not changed until they realized the magnitude of God’s love for them. May you realize that Jesus seeks to pass by you today, to reveal Himself to you, and to melt your heart by showing you His nail pierced hands, His wounded feet, and His pierced side. May you see the great love He had for you–the God who died in your place that you might have eternal life. And may we all worship Him as Lord right here and now. Amen.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2015
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
In Defense of Revelation
There really shouldn't be a battle between science and religion.
But there is in some circles, and one of the major sticking points is the understanding of how knowledge is acquired. Science uses the scientific method to obtain knowledge, and it is a very, very useful tool. Religion claims another type of knowledge: revelation.
Some scientists are not too keen on revelatory knowledge (see Dawkins, Richard or watch a few videos of Hitchens, Christopher). They see this kind of knowledge as inferior.
I would personally argue revelatory knowledge is inferior within the scientific process as well; however, I would argue scientific knowledge (as obtained by the scientific method) is inferior in the relational process. In relationships, we depend upon revelatory knowledge.
For instance, I challenge anyone who believes revelatory knowledge to be inferior to push their logic to the extreme. In their personal relationships--with spouse or partner; friends or family--they can only deem credible the knowledge they have obtained in studying someone else. They can only consider knowledge credible which has been verified, measured, and replicated.
How intimate do you think your relationship will be?
Short answer: it will not be intimate at all. You will never, ever fully come to know another person unless that person reveals himself or herself to you. You will only get a surface analysis, but you will not know exactly what that person thinks or believes. You will not begin to know the thought processes which make that person make the choices he or she does. You cannot know those things unless that person tells/reveals those things to you.
For instance, during college, I ate an unusual amount of Ramen Noodle Soup. Externally, one might look at me eating the fare multiple times and come to the conclusion that I loved to eat this food; that I considered it a delicacy; and that it was very satisfying. They could be correct. Another might look and consider that as a college student, I didn't have a lot of money, Ramen was cheap, and so I ate it often because I could get nourishment for a small price. They could be correct as well. Another might look at me eating Ramen and think I was addicted to said soups and needed to consistently eat them in order to function. They could be correct as well. Not bothering to ask me, each person could come to this conclusion based upon the observable data. Each could argue their positions. Each could claim to be correct based upon their observations (and their assumptions).
But if I do not reveal myself to them and my own processes, then they could all be wrong.
For the record, I ate lots of Ramen because it was cheap AND I liked the taste, and you would not know this unless I told you. Even in a virtual relationship, you can only get to know me if I reveal things to you. In a very real way, scientific knowledge when applied to relationships is inferior.
Which means, if there is a God (I personally believe the evidence points us toward that conclusion), then, if that God is a personal God, then that God would have to reveal Himself to us in some way, shape or form. God would have to communicate with us in some sort of fashion which revealed to us His nature; His thought processes; His self.
Such knowledge would in no way be inferior. Not in the least.
But there is in some circles, and one of the major sticking points is the understanding of how knowledge is acquired. Science uses the scientific method to obtain knowledge, and it is a very, very useful tool. Religion claims another type of knowledge: revelation.
Some scientists are not too keen on revelatory knowledge (see Dawkins, Richard or watch a few videos of Hitchens, Christopher). They see this kind of knowledge as inferior.
I would personally argue revelatory knowledge is inferior within the scientific process as well; however, I would argue scientific knowledge (as obtained by the scientific method) is inferior in the relational process. In relationships, we depend upon revelatory knowledge.
For instance, I challenge anyone who believes revelatory knowledge to be inferior to push their logic to the extreme. In their personal relationships--with spouse or partner; friends or family--they can only deem credible the knowledge they have obtained in studying someone else. They can only consider knowledge credible which has been verified, measured, and replicated.
How intimate do you think your relationship will be?
Short answer: it will not be intimate at all. You will never, ever fully come to know another person unless that person reveals himself or herself to you. You will only get a surface analysis, but you will not know exactly what that person thinks or believes. You will not begin to know the thought processes which make that person make the choices he or she does. You cannot know those things unless that person tells/reveals those things to you.
For instance, during college, I ate an unusual amount of Ramen Noodle Soup. Externally, one might look at me eating the fare multiple times and come to the conclusion that I loved to eat this food; that I considered it a delicacy; and that it was very satisfying. They could be correct. Another might look and consider that as a college student, I didn't have a lot of money, Ramen was cheap, and so I ate it often because I could get nourishment for a small price. They could be correct as well. Another might look at me eating Ramen and think I was addicted to said soups and needed to consistently eat them in order to function. They could be correct as well. Not bothering to ask me, each person could come to this conclusion based upon the observable data. Each could argue their positions. Each could claim to be correct based upon their observations (and their assumptions).
But if I do not reveal myself to them and my own processes, then they could all be wrong.
For the record, I ate lots of Ramen because it was cheap AND I liked the taste, and you would not know this unless I told you. Even in a virtual relationship, you can only get to know me if I reveal things to you. In a very real way, scientific knowledge when applied to relationships is inferior.
Which means, if there is a God (I personally believe the evidence points us toward that conclusion), then, if that God is a personal God, then that God would have to reveal Himself to us in some way, shape or form. God would have to communicate with us in some sort of fashion which revealed to us His nature; His thought processes; His self.
Such knowledge would in no way be inferior. Not in the least.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Is There Something Out There?
In a conversation with a congregation member this past Sunday, I invoked the name of Isaac Asimov. My congregation member and I were discussing the relationship between science and faith and how there is quite a bit of arrogance on the part of both "sides" as they promote their particular points of view.
The reality, my congregation member pointed out, is "everyone has faith in something that cannot be proved."
For those who base their thought process in science, the idea everyone bases their thought processes in faith is abhorrent! "Science is not about faith!!" they decry. And then, in the name of science, they proclaim, "There is no evidence for God." Their conclusion is logical. However, I will argue, their conclusion stems from premises which are indeed faith based. Isaac Asimov is helpful here.
Asimov, of course, was a brilliant author, biochemist and philosopher. If you read his works, you will see that he has an incredible ability to remain logically consistent as he conveys philosophical and scientific truth. His short stories weave these truths throughout and (hopefully) help the reader better to understand them. In the short story "Reason" from I, Robot, the following dialogue is found as the two human characters try to deal with a "rogue" robot:
"Then, for the love of Jupiter, we've got to do something." Donovan was half in tears. "He doesn't believe us, or the books, or his eyes."
"No," said Powell bitterly, "he's a reasoning robot--damn it. He believes only reason, and there's one trouble with that--" his voice trailed away.
"What's that?" prompted Donovan.
"You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason--if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his."
"Then let's get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm's due tomorrow."
Powell signed wearily. "That's where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them. I'm going to bed."
(If one desires to deeply understand why Asimov places this in his stories, one can study and read up on Goedel's proof.)
The scientist may decry, "I have no postulates. I have no assumptions. I base everything upon what I can see and measure."
But what assumptions are built into the statement, "I base everything upon what I can see and measure?"
Just this: you are confined to the natural world. You are confined to only the things you can see and measure. Nothing more. Using science, one cannot answer the question, "Is there anything beyond the physical universe?" Based upon a method which requires measurement, duplication, reason, logic, and observation, one cannot come up with any absolute conclusion for what may lie beyond what can be measured, duplicated, reasoned, and observed. One is limited. The only thing one can do is look at the evidence provided within the physical universe and deduce whether or not something may or may not be beyond it. One cannot arrive at any definite conclusion--at least based upon the assumptions.
If one recognizes this, then one easily sees that the statement, "God does not exist," is actually a statement of faith. It is not a statement of science. It is not a statement of fact. It is not a statement of pure reason. It is a statement based upon what one tries to deduce from looking at the evidence in the natural world and extrapolating to that which is beyond the boundaries of the natural universe.
One may ask, "Well, what is the problem with that?"
From Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion:
"The human brain runs first class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie about what is going on in time. Our brains construct [emphasis mine] a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless."
Think about that statement long and hard. If one's assumption is "There is nothing beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret any data which comes in as supporting the assumption.
On the other hand, if one's assumption is, "There is something beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret the same data as supporting this assumption.
This is why believers and non-believers can look at the exact same evidence and come up with vastly different conclusions. It has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence. The evidence might be just fine--for both!! However, it has everything to do with the assumptions governing the logic!
The cold, hard fact is that we do not know what lies beyond the bounds of our physical universe. We will actually never know. (Asimov is helpful here too, but I won't go there right now.) By a statement of faith we can either say, "There is something out there." or "There is nothing out there." Neither of these statements can be proved. They are both statements of faith. We would do well to recognize this.
It might just help to tone down the rhetoric and settle a few court battles along the way.
At least I can dream, right?
The reality, my congregation member pointed out, is "everyone has faith in something that cannot be proved."
For those who base their thought process in science, the idea everyone bases their thought processes in faith is abhorrent! "Science is not about faith!!" they decry. And then, in the name of science, they proclaim, "There is no evidence for God." Their conclusion is logical. However, I will argue, their conclusion stems from premises which are indeed faith based. Isaac Asimov is helpful here.
Asimov, of course, was a brilliant author, biochemist and philosopher. If you read his works, you will see that he has an incredible ability to remain logically consistent as he conveys philosophical and scientific truth. His short stories weave these truths throughout and (hopefully) help the reader better to understand them. In the short story "Reason" from I, Robot, the following dialogue is found as the two human characters try to deal with a "rogue" robot:
"Then, for the love of Jupiter, we've got to do something." Donovan was half in tears. "He doesn't believe us, or the books, or his eyes."
"No," said Powell bitterly, "he's a reasoning robot--damn it. He believes only reason, and there's one trouble with that--" his voice trailed away.
"What's that?" prompted Donovan.
"You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason--if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his."
"Then let's get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm's due tomorrow."
Powell signed wearily. "That's where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them. I'm going to bed."
(If one desires to deeply understand why Asimov places this in his stories, one can study and read up on Goedel's proof.)
The scientist may decry, "I have no postulates. I have no assumptions. I base everything upon what I can see and measure."
But what assumptions are built into the statement, "I base everything upon what I can see and measure?"
Just this: you are confined to the natural world. You are confined to only the things you can see and measure. Nothing more. Using science, one cannot answer the question, "Is there anything beyond the physical universe?" Based upon a method which requires measurement, duplication, reason, logic, and observation, one cannot come up with any absolute conclusion for what may lie beyond what can be measured, duplicated, reasoned, and observed. One is limited. The only thing one can do is look at the evidence provided within the physical universe and deduce whether or not something may or may not be beyond it. One cannot arrive at any definite conclusion--at least based upon the assumptions.
If one recognizes this, then one easily sees that the statement, "God does not exist," is actually a statement of faith. It is not a statement of science. It is not a statement of fact. It is not a statement of pure reason. It is a statement based upon what one tries to deduce from looking at the evidence in the natural world and extrapolating to that which is beyond the boundaries of the natural universe.
One may ask, "Well, what is the problem with that?"
From Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion:
"The human brain runs first class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie about what is going on in time. Our brains construct [emphasis mine] a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless."
Think about that statement long and hard. If one's assumption is "There is nothing beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret any data which comes in as supporting the assumption.
On the other hand, if one's assumption is, "There is something beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret the same data as supporting this assumption.
This is why believers and non-believers can look at the exact same evidence and come up with vastly different conclusions. It has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence. The evidence might be just fine--for both!! However, it has everything to do with the assumptions governing the logic!
The cold, hard fact is that we do not know what lies beyond the bounds of our physical universe. We will actually never know. (Asimov is helpful here too, but I won't go there right now.) By a statement of faith we can either say, "There is something out there." or "There is nothing out there." Neither of these statements can be proved. They are both statements of faith. We would do well to recognize this.
It might just help to tone down the rhetoric and settle a few court battles along the way.
At least I can dream, right?
Thursday, February 6, 2014
It's Not Creationism VERSUS Evolution
CNN linked it.
So did FOX.
Drudge had a link for a time.
Didn't check the other networks.
Just didn't have the desire to, especially since the whole shebang is a set up.
Evolution VERSUS Creationism.
The Bible VERSUS We don't know.
Gimme a break.
I've done a lot of study in this arena. I've read Dawkins (and Hawking) for good measure. Brilliant scientists. Not so good on the philosophy, though or actually finding logical conclusions to their given premises. Still, well worth the respective reads only so you know where they are coming from.
I've also listened to and read numerous Christian scientists and mathematicians: Francis Collins, Ian Hutchinson, John Lennox, Troy Vorhees, and others. Top notch stuff, especially from a Christian worldview. None, and I mean NONE of these thinkers see any conflict between science and faith.
Of course, there are those who want there to be a conflict.
Read that again. And again. And again.
A lot of money and air time goes to those who want there to be a conflict. "It's either/or!" they shout, without realizing both/and works really, really well.
Science is incomplete. It will always be incomplete. It rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (For proof of this, read Goedel's proof.)
Faith rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (See Hebrews 11)
The conflict comes from folks who are so dead-set in their own particular worldviews that they cannot allow for any sort of truth outside those particular worldviews. It makes for great television/drama (not), but makes it awfully difficult for any sort of real reconciliation and dealing with some of the real problems in the world.
Science and faith, working together can accomplish much. They actually need each other. "Debates" and attention grabbing headlines don't help.
So did FOX.
Drudge had a link for a time.
Didn't check the other networks.
Just didn't have the desire to, especially since the whole shebang is a set up.
Evolution VERSUS Creationism.
The Bible VERSUS We don't know.
Gimme a break.
I've done a lot of study in this arena. I've read Dawkins (and Hawking) for good measure. Brilliant scientists. Not so good on the philosophy, though or actually finding logical conclusions to their given premises. Still, well worth the respective reads only so you know where they are coming from.
I've also listened to and read numerous Christian scientists and mathematicians: Francis Collins, Ian Hutchinson, John Lennox, Troy Vorhees, and others. Top notch stuff, especially from a Christian worldview. None, and I mean NONE of these thinkers see any conflict between science and faith.
Of course, there are those who want there to be a conflict.
Read that again. And again. And again.
A lot of money and air time goes to those who want there to be a conflict. "It's either/or!" they shout, without realizing both/and works really, really well.
Science is incomplete. It will always be incomplete. It rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (For proof of this, read Goedel's proof.)
Faith rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (See Hebrews 11)
The conflict comes from folks who are so dead-set in their own particular worldviews that they cannot allow for any sort of truth outside those particular worldviews. It makes for great television/drama (not), but makes it awfully difficult for any sort of real reconciliation and dealing with some of the real problems in the world.
Science and faith, working together can accomplish much. They actually need each other. "Debates" and attention grabbing headlines don't help.
Monday, December 2, 2013
A Psychological Pillar
While traveling in Arkansas for the Thanksgiving holiday, I took my family to visit Bluff Dweller's Cavern in Noel, Missouri. I highly recommend the cavern for a family tour. It's not what I would call a spectacular cavern, but it is beautiful and very friendly on the legs and feet--a plus if you have younger children.
Among the things I found fascinating was the very last cavern room. Our guide pointed to a giant pillar which had been constructed in the middle of that room.
"That is a psychological pillar," she explained. "During the 1950's, when this cavern was designated a nuclear fallout shelter, the government wanted us to build that pillar in the middle of this room. It is not necessary. It doesn't hold anything up or bear any weight. The government folks believed people would be freaked out at the size of this room if there wasn't something in the middle seeming to hold up the ceiling."
In some ways, it is rather head shaking since the roof of that particular room had been holding up just fine for tens of thousands of years. However, there is no doubt that there are indeed people who need such psychological "pillars" in their lives--think Linus from the Peanuts comic strip.
Ideally, we mature and are able to one day come to the realization that those psychological pillars are unnecessary. We come to realize they are simply an unneeded crutch which has given us a sense of safety and security even though it doesn't hold up anything.
Some people have called religious faith such a psychological pillar.
I have come to appreciate the criticism, and if religion is a human construct, then, indeed, it is a psychological pillar.
But that is a big, if...a monumental assumption.
For those of us of a religious bent do not assume that religion is a human construct. We assume that God has brought us to believe in Him. Some neurosurgeons have even come to the conclusion that the brain is hardwired for belief in God. If the brain is indeed hardwired, then why? It would seem "evolution"--in my opinion guided evolution--has brought humankind to a place where we naturally and instinctively believe there is something beyond our physical universe. Would "evolution" produce such an unnecessary "crutch"? After all, if you study religion and how it has been practiced throughout the ages, you would see that it consumes precious time and resources which should be used for survival and reproduction--the main pillars of evolutionary theory. Surely, evolution would have naturally deselected this genetic wiring if it was unnecessary--at least in theory.
But it hasn't. It's still there. It certainly does not seem to be a human construct.
Perhaps indeed we are religiously wired to believe in God because there is a God. Perhaps religious wiring is God's way of helping us to see and understand there is a natural law of justice and right behavior so that we may better know how to deal with one another and the world around us. Perhaps our brains are wired in the manner for belief because this belief gives us a mechanism to overcome the selfish nature which resides in each and every human being. Perhaps religious belief is not a crutch but the very foundation of how we must live and move and have our being.
There are those who disagree. "A psychological pillar." "A crutch." This is religious faith for them.
However, please allow me to submit a philosophical truth or two. Philosophy is a human construct. So is science. Both of these arenas tend to see religion as a "psychological pillar" or "crutch" or "human construct." Why they don't seem to apply this truth to themselves is somewhat beyond me. So, what is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander. If these two items are human constructs, then are they psychological pillars? Are they crutches which are leaned upon to help folks cope with the reality of the world?
Of course they are. In fact, when one takes philosophy to its extreme (Nietzsche), there are no rules. There are no absolutes. There is complete relativism, and we are basically allowed to do whatever we want for there are no morals. Science leads us to the same place. Richard Dawkins even says so by concluding that at the very foundation of our species--there is no right, there is no wrong. We are simply dancing to the tune of our DNA.
These human constructs basically eradicate any foundation for morality, justice, or right behavior. They leave us absolute freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, especially if we can avoid anyone with more power or authority than ourselves.
In a very real way, they remove any sort of remorse or guilt for any particular behavior committed. They remove any sort of real responsibility a person may have.
So, let's put this in perspective:
Among the things I found fascinating was the very last cavern room. Our guide pointed to a giant pillar which had been constructed in the middle of that room.
"That is a psychological pillar," she explained. "During the 1950's, when this cavern was designated a nuclear fallout shelter, the government wanted us to build that pillar in the middle of this room. It is not necessary. It doesn't hold anything up or bear any weight. The government folks believed people would be freaked out at the size of this room if there wasn't something in the middle seeming to hold up the ceiling."
In some ways, it is rather head shaking since the roof of that particular room had been holding up just fine for tens of thousands of years. However, there is no doubt that there are indeed people who need such psychological "pillars" in their lives--think Linus from the Peanuts comic strip.
Ideally, we mature and are able to one day come to the realization that those psychological pillars are unnecessary. We come to realize they are simply an unneeded crutch which has given us a sense of safety and security even though it doesn't hold up anything.
Some people have called religious faith such a psychological pillar.
I have come to appreciate the criticism, and if religion is a human construct, then, indeed, it is a psychological pillar.
But that is a big, if...a monumental assumption.
For those of us of a religious bent do not assume that religion is a human construct. We assume that God has brought us to believe in Him. Some neurosurgeons have even come to the conclusion that the brain is hardwired for belief in God. If the brain is indeed hardwired, then why? It would seem "evolution"--in my opinion guided evolution--has brought humankind to a place where we naturally and instinctively believe there is something beyond our physical universe. Would "evolution" produce such an unnecessary "crutch"? After all, if you study religion and how it has been practiced throughout the ages, you would see that it consumes precious time and resources which should be used for survival and reproduction--the main pillars of evolutionary theory. Surely, evolution would have naturally deselected this genetic wiring if it was unnecessary--at least in theory.
But it hasn't. It's still there. It certainly does not seem to be a human construct.
Perhaps indeed we are religiously wired to believe in God because there is a God. Perhaps religious wiring is God's way of helping us to see and understand there is a natural law of justice and right behavior so that we may better know how to deal with one another and the world around us. Perhaps our brains are wired in the manner for belief because this belief gives us a mechanism to overcome the selfish nature which resides in each and every human being. Perhaps religious belief is not a crutch but the very foundation of how we must live and move and have our being.
There are those who disagree. "A psychological pillar." "A crutch." This is religious faith for them.
However, please allow me to submit a philosophical truth or two. Philosophy is a human construct. So is science. Both of these arenas tend to see religion as a "psychological pillar" or "crutch" or "human construct." Why they don't seem to apply this truth to themselves is somewhat beyond me. So, what is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander. If these two items are human constructs, then are they psychological pillars? Are they crutches which are leaned upon to help folks cope with the reality of the world?
Of course they are. In fact, when one takes philosophy to its extreme (Nietzsche), there are no rules. There are no absolutes. There is complete relativism, and we are basically allowed to do whatever we want for there are no morals. Science leads us to the same place. Richard Dawkins even says so by concluding that at the very foundation of our species--there is no right, there is no wrong. We are simply dancing to the tune of our DNA.
These human constructs basically eradicate any foundation for morality, justice, or right behavior. They leave us absolute freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, especially if we can avoid anyone with more power or authority than ourselves.
In a very real way, they remove any sort of remorse or guilt for any particular behavior committed. They remove any sort of real responsibility a person may have.
So, let's put this in perspective:
- A human construct
- Which removes any universal values
- Which allows almost complete freedom
- Which removes any sort of guilt
- Which removes any sort of foundation for responsibility
Thursday, November 7, 2013
More Amazing Stuff on Evolution and Life
I found this thought exercise applying Moore's Law for computer science to biology to be fascinating.
If you read this article, you will see that in doing so, the evolution of life as we know it should have taken 10 billion years. The interesting issue is, the earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
Now, this study assumes one can actually apply Moore's law to biology. It's a huge, huge assumption--one that would actually take quite a bit of study to confirm. This is why the researchers themselves call it a thought experiment.
Given this though, the thought experiment actually does confirm something biologists have known--natural selection and genetic mutation are not adequate to describe the evolutionary process. The process has been too fast even given the age of the earth.
See, as a paleontologist described the events on earth:
For 2 billion years, there was no life. None. Zip. Nada.
Then, we had bacteria form. Pond scum was how he described it.
Pond scum reigned for 2 billion years.
Then, in the space of 500 million years--a cosmological blink of an eye, we go from pond scum to human beings. Of course, this leaves out the complexity of the dinosaurs and the 99% of species who once roamed the earth which are now extinct.
Even Moore's Law cannot account for such complexity arising out of, well, nothing.
Cosmic chance evolution is so rapid? Guided evolution?
Chance isn't reasonable.
Perhaps there are other mechanisms at play that science hasn't discovered yet. When they do...if they do...I am sure they will be absolutely amazing and fascinating and give one more display of God's handiwork in creation.
If you read this article, you will see that in doing so, the evolution of life as we know it should have taken 10 billion years. The interesting issue is, the earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
Now, this study assumes one can actually apply Moore's law to biology. It's a huge, huge assumption--one that would actually take quite a bit of study to confirm. This is why the researchers themselves call it a thought experiment.
Given this though, the thought experiment actually does confirm something biologists have known--natural selection and genetic mutation are not adequate to describe the evolutionary process. The process has been too fast even given the age of the earth.
See, as a paleontologist described the events on earth:
For 2 billion years, there was no life. None. Zip. Nada.
Then, we had bacteria form. Pond scum was how he described it.
Pond scum reigned for 2 billion years.
Then, in the space of 500 million years--a cosmological blink of an eye, we go from pond scum to human beings. Of course, this leaves out the complexity of the dinosaurs and the 99% of species who once roamed the earth which are now extinct.
Even Moore's Law cannot account for such complexity arising out of, well, nothing.
Cosmic chance evolution is so rapid? Guided evolution?
Chance isn't reasonable.
Perhaps there are other mechanisms at play that science hasn't discovered yet. When they do...if they do...I am sure they will be absolutely amazing and fascinating and give one more display of God's handiwork in creation.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
The Probability of Life
I've had an interesting month or so when it comes to discussing the origins of life and its probability.
Last week's final post on God in school elicited a response from a friend who is a science teacher, and is someone I respect tremendously. She outlaid what I knew to be true but didn't articulate clearly in my post.
Many teachers are forced to teach certain curriculum and have no say in how it is presented.
I think that is unfortunate, particularly when covering evolution and the origins of life.
Please understand this important point: I adhere to evolutionary theory as an explanation as to how life evolved on our planet. I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute is unguided evolution based on the probability of life originating and then evolving as rapidly as it has.
Please allow me to explain using the origin of life on our planet: DNA.
There is little dispute among the biological community that the first forms of life on our planet were simple bacteria. There is little dispute that the building blocks of these bacteria are proteins composed of the DNA molecule. There is little dispute regarding the DNA molecule and how it is in a double-helix shape composed of nucleotides. These are composed of nucleobases (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine), recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into anymore detailed scientific terms. Please bear with me. I think this is extremely important.)
Now, in the simplest of bacteria, there are hundreds of thousands of nucleobases. This is important. The human DNA has over 3 billion base pairs, dwarfing bacteria. So, we are talking about the very, very basics. Simple, correct? And with the trillions of planets that must exist in our universe, life should be a slam dunk? Correct?
Richard Dawkins, noted biologist and atheist gives the origins of life a one in a billion chance. As such, he is a firm believer in the existence of life throughout the universe. But I wonder where he got that one in a billion figure? Is it that small? And yes, I believe it is too small.
Interestingly enough, in a debate between Dawkins and John Lennox, who is a mathematician, Lennox states that he cannot believe that life developed randomly. Dawkins, either sympathetically or condescendingly says, "I know that." I think Dawkins would do well to study some mathematics and try to understand why Lewis says what he says.
I think I get it, and here is why:
The first nucleotide would be either a G,A,T, or C. It has a one in four chance of being the correct one or 25%. Not too bad a chance. But let's extend that down to ten places. Each place has a one in four shot, so we get 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4.... or 1/4^10. That's a 1/1,048,576 chance that all 10 would come together. The odds are getting much smaller--already passing Dawkin's one in a billion chance. So, let's extrapolate down another 10 spots. 1/4^20 or 1/1,099,511,627,776. Those odds are essentially nil, zero, not a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks, and we are only to the 20th nucleotide. Would you ascribe such a coming together of chemicals to chance? Even if you have hundreds of billions of planets out there, do you really believe that number comes even close to lessening the odds? Statistically, not a chance. At all.
Somehow in the primordial soup that was our planet nearly 3 billion years ago, life emerged as these chemicals came together to form it. You can say that it happened by chance that these chemicals somehow did this on their own, but that's not exactly a very rational statement in light of the math. It's possible that it could have happened in such a fashion, but it is definitely more rational to believe that it didn't just happen on its own.
So, once again, we are left with three options presented to us regarding the origins of life:
1. Pure chance--mathematically laughable.
2. In an impossibly large number of parallel universes, we happened to be in the one that was just right--not evidence based as there is no way to measure or observe some sort of parallel universe by definition. One must adhere to this option purely by faith.
3. Life was create--the most probable of the three given the numbers along with the fact that our universe began out of nothing and is finely tuned.
In our school systems, when it comes to teaching biology and the origins of life, #1 and #2 can be freely taught without repercussion despite the known difficulties. I am of the persuasion that option #3 needs to be added as an option in our educational system. It seems the most rational position.
Last week's final post on God in school elicited a response from a friend who is a science teacher, and is someone I respect tremendously. She outlaid what I knew to be true but didn't articulate clearly in my post.
Many teachers are forced to teach certain curriculum and have no say in how it is presented.
I think that is unfortunate, particularly when covering evolution and the origins of life.
Please understand this important point: I adhere to evolutionary theory as an explanation as to how life evolved on our planet. I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute is unguided evolution based on the probability of life originating and then evolving as rapidly as it has.
Please allow me to explain using the origin of life on our planet: DNA.
There is little dispute among the biological community that the first forms of life on our planet were simple bacteria. There is little dispute that the building blocks of these bacteria are proteins composed of the DNA molecule. There is little dispute regarding the DNA molecule and how it is in a double-helix shape composed of nucleotides. These are composed of nucleobases (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine), recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into anymore detailed scientific terms. Please bear with me. I think this is extremely important.)
Now, in the simplest of bacteria, there are hundreds of thousands of nucleobases. This is important. The human DNA has over 3 billion base pairs, dwarfing bacteria. So, we are talking about the very, very basics. Simple, correct? And with the trillions of planets that must exist in our universe, life should be a slam dunk? Correct?
Richard Dawkins, noted biologist and atheist gives the origins of life a one in a billion chance. As such, he is a firm believer in the existence of life throughout the universe. But I wonder where he got that one in a billion figure? Is it that small? And yes, I believe it is too small.
Interestingly enough, in a debate between Dawkins and John Lennox, who is a mathematician, Lennox states that he cannot believe that life developed randomly. Dawkins, either sympathetically or condescendingly says, "I know that." I think Dawkins would do well to study some mathematics and try to understand why Lewis says what he says.
I think I get it, and here is why:
The first nucleotide would be either a G,A,T, or C. It has a one in four chance of being the correct one or 25%. Not too bad a chance. But let's extend that down to ten places. Each place has a one in four shot, so we get 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4.... or 1/4^10. That's a 1/1,048,576 chance that all 10 would come together. The odds are getting much smaller--already passing Dawkin's one in a billion chance. So, let's extrapolate down another 10 spots. 1/4^20 or 1/1,099,511,627,776. Those odds are essentially nil, zero, not a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks, and we are only to the 20th nucleotide. Would you ascribe such a coming together of chemicals to chance? Even if you have hundreds of billions of planets out there, do you really believe that number comes even close to lessening the odds? Statistically, not a chance. At all.
Somehow in the primordial soup that was our planet nearly 3 billion years ago, life emerged as these chemicals came together to form it. You can say that it happened by chance that these chemicals somehow did this on their own, but that's not exactly a very rational statement in light of the math. It's possible that it could have happened in such a fashion, but it is definitely more rational to believe that it didn't just happen on its own.
So, once again, we are left with three options presented to us regarding the origins of life:
1. Pure chance--mathematically laughable.
2. In an impossibly large number of parallel universes, we happened to be in the one that was just right--not evidence based as there is no way to measure or observe some sort of parallel universe by definition. One must adhere to this option purely by faith.
3. Life was create--the most probable of the three given the numbers along with the fact that our universe began out of nothing and is finely tuned.
In our school systems, when it comes to teaching biology and the origins of life, #1 and #2 can be freely taught without repercussion despite the known difficulties. I am of the persuasion that option #3 needs to be added as an option in our educational system. It seems the most rational position.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
God in School
I wish I had a better title than the above for I do not believe it does this post justice. Nothing better came to mind to kind of pull together the thoughts roaming around in my head.
Let's start with Miley Cyrus. Not only did she grab attention at the VMA's, but the next thing you know, she is featured in a music video riding a giant wrecking ball naked (with hands strategically placed) seductively licking a sledge hammer. I've read more than a few opinion pieces analyzing, criticizing, and supporting her behavior. And I ask, "Is it surprising?"
Let's then move to Anthony Weiner. I posted about a shouting match he had the other day with a fellow Jewish New Yorker. New York voters soundly rejected him as a mayoral candidate particularly after he was found to be sexting even after losing his congressional seat for doing the same thing. One of his sexting partners showed up at his election party. After all was said and done, Weiner flipped the bird at reporters showing little contrition for anything he had done or was doing. And I ask, "Is this surprising?"
We move now to violence and the horrendous murders we have seen taking place in the news--particularly those with a racial overtone. I find it interesting how the different news networks have begun dealing with such matters after the George Zimmerman trial. Suddenly, each time a black person harms or kills a white person, there is a racial overtone and vice-versa. There seems to be a concerted effort to highlight violence that occurs between people of different color/race/ethnicity. And I ask, "Is such violence surprising?"
Now, we head toward the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. I saw several stories in the past few days highlighting the fact that the wealthy keep getting more wealth while the poor remain in poverty. The few are lording it over the many, and there are cries rising up about the injustice of it all. But I ask, "Is it really surprising?"
I mean, I think all of these things have something in common. There is a common thread that actually binds it all together.
Think about what we teach now in school regarding human beings and how they came into existence. In our science classes we teach that man descended from apes. Man is simply another animal who evolved--there is nothing special about him. And how did that evolution occur? Through natural selection and genetic mutation. Now, we know we have little control over genetic mutation. This happens when our genes fail to make exact replicas either by a mistake in the replication process or from some sort of mechanism including being affected by radiation from the sun. It really doesn't matter--it's out of any control that we exert.
Ah, but natural selection--that's another story. For natural selection is all about the survival of the fittest. Death and disease wipes out the lesser and the weaker leaving the strong to thrive and survive. Passing on one's genes means rising to the top of the food chain, striving to be the highest on the ladder to ensure survival of one's genetic lineage. It means attracting the alpha of the opposite sex as well to ensure a good genetic bond. And protecting one's genes from those considered lesser is paramount! When a threat arises to challenge our status, it must be met and put down decisively. This is the natural way of things. Nature isn't some kind of Eden where everything gets along. It's fight, flight, freeze, and reproduce to pass on one's genes and ensure the survival of the species.
Sure, we talk about tit for tat and kindness being a part of the evolutionary process. We talk about how one species can be kind to ensure its survival--particularly if it's effective for a weaker beta male or female. But this is merely descriptive--it is not proscriptive.
This what we teach in school. Plain and simple. And we offer no sort of corrective to this in our science classes at all. Most high schools that I am aware of do not have the resources to offer philosophy or theology classes, and so most students are taught that this is what makes us tick--as the animals we have evolved to be.
And God forbid that we invoke any thought of a Creator in the educational process for that violates the separation of church and state. That is establishing a religion, and we simply cannot have that.
But we have no presented ourselves with a major conundrum. For science isn't capable of getting us from what is to what ought. And as a society, we have walked away from any sort of universal ought when it comes to morals and actions--in short we have walked away from any sort of religious foundations for morals and ethics.
And because of that, we are left with evolutionary thought guiding our behaviors and thoughts. The very stuff we taught in school. And it surprises me that many get so upset when people act like evolution has bred us to act:
When Miley Cyrus uses sexuality to make herself desirable and wealthy, she is simply using what nature gave her to climb the ladder and pass on her genes.
Anthony Weiner does the same thing from a male point of view.
Interracial violence mirrors what goes on in nature when different colors of fur cause species to attack one another from within.
Garnering more wealth is simply a way of garnering more power and prestige--rising to the top of the evolutionary ladder.
And even though kindness is shown in nature, there is nothing--nothing at all--there to take us from is to ought. There is nothing which says kindness ought to be the rule instead of fight, flight, freeze, or reproduction.
Only religion offers a foundation to take us from is to ought. Only faith gives us a foundation to go against many of the evolutionary instincts which drive us.
A failure to recognize this means we will simply keep teaching the same things and expecting different results. Perhaps God does indeed need to be reintroduced in school--not as a means of forcing religion upon anyone, but by helping folks understand:
We are more than animals.
Let's start with Miley Cyrus. Not only did she grab attention at the VMA's, but the next thing you know, she is featured in a music video riding a giant wrecking ball naked (with hands strategically placed) seductively licking a sledge hammer. I've read more than a few opinion pieces analyzing, criticizing, and supporting her behavior. And I ask, "Is it surprising?"
Let's then move to Anthony Weiner. I posted about a shouting match he had the other day with a fellow Jewish New Yorker. New York voters soundly rejected him as a mayoral candidate particularly after he was found to be sexting even after losing his congressional seat for doing the same thing. One of his sexting partners showed up at his election party. After all was said and done, Weiner flipped the bird at reporters showing little contrition for anything he had done or was doing. And I ask, "Is this surprising?"
We move now to violence and the horrendous murders we have seen taking place in the news--particularly those with a racial overtone. I find it interesting how the different news networks have begun dealing with such matters after the George Zimmerman trial. Suddenly, each time a black person harms or kills a white person, there is a racial overtone and vice-versa. There seems to be a concerted effort to highlight violence that occurs between people of different color/race/ethnicity. And I ask, "Is such violence surprising?"
Now, we head toward the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. I saw several stories in the past few days highlighting the fact that the wealthy keep getting more wealth while the poor remain in poverty. The few are lording it over the many, and there are cries rising up about the injustice of it all. But I ask, "Is it really surprising?"
I mean, I think all of these things have something in common. There is a common thread that actually binds it all together.
Think about what we teach now in school regarding human beings and how they came into existence. In our science classes we teach that man descended from apes. Man is simply another animal who evolved--there is nothing special about him. And how did that evolution occur? Through natural selection and genetic mutation. Now, we know we have little control over genetic mutation. This happens when our genes fail to make exact replicas either by a mistake in the replication process or from some sort of mechanism including being affected by radiation from the sun. It really doesn't matter--it's out of any control that we exert.
Ah, but natural selection--that's another story. For natural selection is all about the survival of the fittest. Death and disease wipes out the lesser and the weaker leaving the strong to thrive and survive. Passing on one's genes means rising to the top of the food chain, striving to be the highest on the ladder to ensure survival of one's genetic lineage. It means attracting the alpha of the opposite sex as well to ensure a good genetic bond. And protecting one's genes from those considered lesser is paramount! When a threat arises to challenge our status, it must be met and put down decisively. This is the natural way of things. Nature isn't some kind of Eden where everything gets along. It's fight, flight, freeze, and reproduce to pass on one's genes and ensure the survival of the species.
Sure, we talk about tit for tat and kindness being a part of the evolutionary process. We talk about how one species can be kind to ensure its survival--particularly if it's effective for a weaker beta male or female. But this is merely descriptive--it is not proscriptive.
This what we teach in school. Plain and simple. And we offer no sort of corrective to this in our science classes at all. Most high schools that I am aware of do not have the resources to offer philosophy or theology classes, and so most students are taught that this is what makes us tick--as the animals we have evolved to be.
And God forbid that we invoke any thought of a Creator in the educational process for that violates the separation of church and state. That is establishing a religion, and we simply cannot have that.
But we have no presented ourselves with a major conundrum. For science isn't capable of getting us from what is to what ought. And as a society, we have walked away from any sort of universal ought when it comes to morals and actions--in short we have walked away from any sort of religious foundations for morals and ethics.
And because of that, we are left with evolutionary thought guiding our behaviors and thoughts. The very stuff we taught in school. And it surprises me that many get so upset when people act like evolution has bred us to act:
When Miley Cyrus uses sexuality to make herself desirable and wealthy, she is simply using what nature gave her to climb the ladder and pass on her genes.
Anthony Weiner does the same thing from a male point of view.
Interracial violence mirrors what goes on in nature when different colors of fur cause species to attack one another from within.
Garnering more wealth is simply a way of garnering more power and prestige--rising to the top of the evolutionary ladder.
And even though kindness is shown in nature, there is nothing--nothing at all--there to take us from is to ought. There is nothing which says kindness ought to be the rule instead of fight, flight, freeze, or reproduction.
Only religion offers a foundation to take us from is to ought. Only faith gives us a foundation to go against many of the evolutionary instincts which drive us.
A failure to recognize this means we will simply keep teaching the same things and expecting different results. Perhaps God does indeed need to be reintroduced in school--not as a means of forcing religion upon anyone, but by helping folks understand:
We are more than animals.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Personal Experience, Proof of God, and Richard Dawkins
In the midst of writing my book, I came to the realization I would need to read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. I had seen Dawkins debate Christian philosophers and scientists on Youtube, but I had yet to read his works. Necessity drove me to finally purchase the book.
I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post. Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise. What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition. Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God.
Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen. And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.
Dawkins writes:
Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology. (Kindle Location 1397)
What makes Dawkins say such things?
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. (Kindle location 1414)
...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication. And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)
That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings. (Kindle location 1471)
It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works. My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain. In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye. Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears. Our brains fill it in!!!
Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.
But Dawkins has a problem here. A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp. He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution. He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain. And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous." (Kindle location 1403)
So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct? I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.
There is more to be said; however. For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in. What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things. Yes, you heard me correctly. The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.
Please watch the following video as illustration:
If you are like me, you rewound it just to make sure there wasn't some sleight of hand.
Did you see that your brain omitted something important? Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this. Perhaps he does not. If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias. Why?
Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...
And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...
Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life. It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source. It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced. It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be). Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.
I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post. Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise. What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition. Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God.
Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen. And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.
Dawkins writes:
Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology. (Kindle Location 1397)
What makes Dawkins say such things?
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. (Kindle location 1414)
...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication. And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)
That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings. (Kindle location 1471)
It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works. My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain. In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye. Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears. Our brains fill it in!!!
Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.
But Dawkins has a problem here. A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp. He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution. He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain. And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous." (Kindle location 1403)
So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct? I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.
There is more to be said; however. For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in. What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things. Yes, you heard me correctly. The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.
Please watch the following video as illustration:
Did you see that your brain omitted something important? Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this. Perhaps he does not. If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias. Why?
Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...
And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...
Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life. It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source. It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced. It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be). Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
America Losing Its Religion
CNN Religion blogs ran the headline yesterday: America Losing Its Religion.
The headline is a bit of a misnomer because Americans aren't exactly losing their religion. The article spells that out. The headline is a cheap ploy to get people to read--yours truly included. :-)
Pertinent quote--the first four paragraphs:
More than three in four of Americans say religion is losing its influence in the United States, according to a new survey, the highest such percentage in more than 40 years. A nearly identical percentage says that trend bodes ill for the country.
"It may be happening, but Americans don't like it," Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, said of religion's waning influence. "It is clear that a lot of Americans don't think this is a good state of affairs."
According to the Gallup survey released Wednesday, 77% of Americans say religion is losing its influence. Since 1957, when the question was first asked, Americans' perception of religion's power has never been lower.
According to the poll, 75% of Americans said it the country would be better off if it was more religious.
So, the headline is blatantly wrong. America isn't losing it's religion. In fact, the poll actually suggests the vast majority (3/4) of Americans believe the country would be better off if it were religious. This speaks volumes!! People believe religion has a positive effect on the country!!!
Yet, these same people believe religion is losing influence.
It's not surprising. Religion has had a very tough time adapting to a host of things:
1. The rise of secularism. The secular worldview has ascended to prominence when it comes to debating what goes on in the United States. Faith based arguments generally no longer have much persuasive power. This forces people of faith to suspend the place where they draw most of their ethics and morality and argue from a much different, uncomfortable place. Too many people of faith do not have the tools to do this or to argue the difficulty of dealing with moral issues from a strictly secular point of view. #2 below has contributed to this mightily as well.
2. The rise of relativism. This path of thought developed to deal with pluralism. In our now global culture, we have been made aware of the differences in thought and practice of people and belief. It is not easy to forge a way forward when confronted with many differing worldviews. Yet, instead of arguing the merits of which worldview provides a better way forward (atheism? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Secular? Scientific?), we strive to say all worldviews are equal--none is better than another. This is most certainly an absurd argument, but it actually has a good number of adherents. Many people of faith have few philosophical tools to argue with the rise of relativism.
3. The prominence of science. Science is cool. It's brought about some awesome things--the ability to understand the world, how it works, and how we can work in the world to improve our survival. Yet, science has proven poor at providing a framework for morality and ethics despite the claims of some that it is capable of doing such a thing. Science has also been shown to be quite limited in other areas and aspects; yet one might never really know this based upon what one hears in the news. For many, science is the be all and end all, and people of faith have had little training in saying, "Science is not this. It is good in one area and not in others."
Because people of faith have not been provided such tools, secularism, relativism, and scientism have undermined the power of religious faith to shape public policy. Most are unhappy with this because they see the benefits faith can bring. Yet, most don't have any idea how to argue in the cultural milieu we find ourselves in.
Perhaps Christian apologists like Timothy Keller, Richard John Neuhaus, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantenga will be read and studied more as they offer some substantial tools to deal with this process, for it seems like America does not want religion to lose its influence--and you can count me in that portion of America as well.
The headline is a bit of a misnomer because Americans aren't exactly losing their religion. The article spells that out. The headline is a cheap ploy to get people to read--yours truly included. :-)
Pertinent quote--the first four paragraphs:
More than three in four of Americans say religion is losing its influence in the United States, according to a new survey, the highest such percentage in more than 40 years. A nearly identical percentage says that trend bodes ill for the country.
"It may be happening, but Americans don't like it," Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, said of religion's waning influence. "It is clear that a lot of Americans don't think this is a good state of affairs."
According to the Gallup survey released Wednesday, 77% of Americans say religion is losing its influence. Since 1957, when the question was first asked, Americans' perception of religion's power has never been lower.
According to the poll, 75% of Americans said it the country would be better off if it was more religious.
So, the headline is blatantly wrong. America isn't losing it's religion. In fact, the poll actually suggests the vast majority (3/4) of Americans believe the country would be better off if it were religious. This speaks volumes!! People believe religion has a positive effect on the country!!!
Yet, these same people believe religion is losing influence.
It's not surprising. Religion has had a very tough time adapting to a host of things:
1. The rise of secularism. The secular worldview has ascended to prominence when it comes to debating what goes on in the United States. Faith based arguments generally no longer have much persuasive power. This forces people of faith to suspend the place where they draw most of their ethics and morality and argue from a much different, uncomfortable place. Too many people of faith do not have the tools to do this or to argue the difficulty of dealing with moral issues from a strictly secular point of view. #2 below has contributed to this mightily as well.
2. The rise of relativism. This path of thought developed to deal with pluralism. In our now global culture, we have been made aware of the differences in thought and practice of people and belief. It is not easy to forge a way forward when confronted with many differing worldviews. Yet, instead of arguing the merits of which worldview provides a better way forward (atheism? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Secular? Scientific?), we strive to say all worldviews are equal--none is better than another. This is most certainly an absurd argument, but it actually has a good number of adherents. Many people of faith have few philosophical tools to argue with the rise of relativism.
3. The prominence of science. Science is cool. It's brought about some awesome things--the ability to understand the world, how it works, and how we can work in the world to improve our survival. Yet, science has proven poor at providing a framework for morality and ethics despite the claims of some that it is capable of doing such a thing. Science has also been shown to be quite limited in other areas and aspects; yet one might never really know this based upon what one hears in the news. For many, science is the be all and end all, and people of faith have had little training in saying, "Science is not this. It is good in one area and not in others."
Because people of faith have not been provided such tools, secularism, relativism, and scientism have undermined the power of religious faith to shape public policy. Most are unhappy with this because they see the benefits faith can bring. Yet, most don't have any idea how to argue in the cultural milieu we find ourselves in.
Perhaps Christian apologists like Timothy Keller, Richard John Neuhaus, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantenga will be read and studied more as they offer some substantial tools to deal with this process, for it seems like America does not want religion to lose its influence--and you can count me in that portion of America as well.
Friday, April 19, 2013
The Non-Living Became Living
"The dead cannot come to life."
This argument might present a Christian with a big problem--especially when spoken by someone who approaches a person of faith from the standpoint of reason and science.
Our usual defense is, "We take such things by faith and not by sight or by reason or by science."
This statement is true on our part, but may I suggest another tact.
First, see if those who say this will modify their statement to, "The non-living cannot become living."
If they agree to this premise, then ask the following:
Do you believe that scientists tell us that the earth was once a part of a bi-nary planet system and that those to planets collided? The remains of that second planet are actually our moon. Do you concede that because of this collision, the earth was once one giant ball of molten rock?
If they concede the point, ask them if they believe this rock was non-living or living.
If they are true to their logic, they will have to say that it was non-living.
Continue: And then, somehow, this planet, which was entirely non-living, molten rock somehow brought about living organisms? Correct?
They must concede the point.
Therefore something that was non-living actually produced something that was living. The non-living became living. It happened once. Isn't it possible it could happen again?
This argument might present a Christian with a big problem--especially when spoken by someone who approaches a person of faith from the standpoint of reason and science.
Our usual defense is, "We take such things by faith and not by sight or by reason or by science."
This statement is true on our part, but may I suggest another tact.
First, see if those who say this will modify their statement to, "The non-living cannot become living."
If they agree to this premise, then ask the following:
Do you believe that scientists tell us that the earth was once a part of a bi-nary planet system and that those to planets collided? The remains of that second planet are actually our moon. Do you concede that because of this collision, the earth was once one giant ball of molten rock?
If they concede the point, ask them if they believe this rock was non-living or living.
If they are true to their logic, they will have to say that it was non-living.
Continue: And then, somehow, this planet, which was entirely non-living, molten rock somehow brought about living organisms? Correct?
They must concede the point.
Therefore something that was non-living actually produced something that was living. The non-living became living. It happened once. Isn't it possible it could happen again?
Monday, April 15, 2013
Another "Ask the Pastor" Response
A few months back, I addressed an "Ask the Pastor" question from the ELCA Living Lutheran Website where I believed the responses given were a bit inadequate. Today, I sense the urge to do so once again.
Today's question is a very important one raised by Bob Lawrence from Chicago:
It’s evident that violations of the laws of nature do not occur in our universe. Christianity depends on the existence of events that violate those laws. How can an intelligent human being be a Christian?
The responses given by fellow clergy are predictable and do little to actually further the discussion. Essentially, they say, "We live by faith not by science or the laws of nature." or "We don't understand or know all the laws of nature." Admittedly, these statements are true; however, they will not convince Bob or anyone else who comes with Bob's premise to give faith a shot.
A congregation member of mine, Rick Shilling, is very prominent in the world of heat exchange engineering. He is a tremendous person of faith as well as a very, very good scientist. He and I have written the following response. Rick's additions are distinguished by being in red print :
An excellent question, Bob, but I would like to challenge the premise a bit. Which laws of nature are you referring to? The laws of Quantum Mechanics or the Laws of General Relativity? I hope you are aware that these two theories dominate the discussion of the way the world works. Quantum Mechanics deals with the subatomic world and General Relativity deals with large objects. They both work very, very well; yet, we also know they are incompatible. You cannot extend General Relativity's laws into the Quantum world, because they do not work well there and vice versa. This has troubled scientists, and, at least for a time and quite possibly still, the Holy Grail of science was a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) which brought these two areas into accord. It still hasn't been found, and, in fact, it is quite possible that it will never be. Why?
One must take up the study of mathematics for a little while, particularly the proof of a German mathematician by the name of Kurt Goedel. He wrote a rather short paper On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I where he proved the limitations of all but the simplest of systems of thought and logic. Goedel wrote the paper in such a way that its implications spilled over into the realms of not only mathematics but science and philosophy as well. Long and short of it, each and every system of thought is limited. It cannot cover all of the bases. Exceptions will always arise. Let that sink in a moment. (I direct your attention to Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design, where if you can overlook his poor attempts to play philosopher in the name of atheism, you can find a good intro explanation of a new concept in physics called “m-theory” where specific sets of scientific “laws” are used only within defined length scales since their inaccuracies are too great outside of these length scales.)
It is because of Goedel that the term scientific law has basically been abolished. (Ever wonder why Einstein’s theory of relativity is still called a theory after more than 100 years of successful testing, more than most any other accepted scientific theory had undergone in the past before being called a scientific law ?)The term is kept around out of respect for Newton and others who first formulated the concept; however, science does not talk in terms of certainty any longer because we have discovered that no law is always true at all times and in all circumstances. Again, take a moment to let that sink in.
When it comes to dealing with interactions in the world, scientists now talk in terms of probability. There is high probability and low probability. There are even cases of extremely minute probability--for instance the probability of a person being resurrected from the dead. It is highly improbable, but it is not impossible--at least according to science. In engineering, where scientific laws are applied to development of real world technologies, the use of probabilities and/or safety factors in design are always included to protect the public.
This means, Bob, unfortunately, your premise is flawed. However, the confusion is understandable and common.
First of all, the secondary education system performs a disservice to its students by teaching the "laws of physics" as if they were immutable truths instead of very accurate approximations best suited for use within certain limits. This "new" understanding became widespread in the practicing scientific community in the early decades of the 20th century but, unfortunately did not filter down to the masses. In addition, universities avoided teaching the full implications of Godel since they did not wish to sow uncertainty among their students who were struggling under heavy course loads. Nowadays, many university professors have never learned that much of Godel and proceed merrily along as if all things were determinant.
Secondly, there are some Christians who adopt a simplistic understanding of what they read in the Bible that cannot easily be defended. This is because as human beings we always "fill in the blanks" of everything we read in our attempts to understand. For most children, the Bible is understood as God performing a series of magic tricks without realizing that the magic tricks are their additions of what they have read to try to understand it. If a reader has not learned how to separate his "filling in of the blanks" from the actual written text, this reader can incorrectly misinterpret new learning as in conflict with what he believes is written in the Bible. Unfortunately, the public protests of some of these Christians get disproportionately high exposure, sometimes drowning out the majority of Christians who do not see any conflicts and are quite comfortable with both science and Christianity.
Thirdly, there are some in the atheistic community who cannot accept the fact that atheism is also a choice. This has to be troubling, if one believes in the infallibility of man or science and then discovers some of the limitations of science or of human thought. Often, some write a protest in defense of atheism by trying to use science and a childlike understanding of Christianity to prove their point. This has always failed and probably always will because neither science nor mankind is completely infallible. There are always choices that must be made.
The Christian faith does not rest upon the necessity of natural laws to be broken. In fact, it is quite compatible with what we have come to understand as the way the world works.
And as those of us who believe in God begin to understand more and more about how the world works, we marvel at God's handiwork. Far from a "God of the gaps" approach, we see intricacy and wonder. We are stupefied by the physical constants and how they are just right to support intelligent life. We marvel at how evolution brought about thinking, intelligent beings out of primordial, unthinking sludge. Far from dismissing what science has shown us about the natural world, we embrace what science has shown us about the majesty of God. It's not that difficult to be an intelligent person and believe in God--even the Christian God. Just ask Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project.
Today's question is a very important one raised by Bob Lawrence from Chicago:
It’s evident that violations of the laws of nature do not occur in our universe. Christianity depends on the existence of events that violate those laws. How can an intelligent human being be a Christian?
The responses given by fellow clergy are predictable and do little to actually further the discussion. Essentially, they say, "We live by faith not by science or the laws of nature." or "We don't understand or know all the laws of nature." Admittedly, these statements are true; however, they will not convince Bob or anyone else who comes with Bob's premise to give faith a shot.
A congregation member of mine, Rick Shilling, is very prominent in the world of heat exchange engineering. He is a tremendous person of faith as well as a very, very good scientist. He and I have written the following response. Rick's additions are distinguished by being in red print :
An excellent question, Bob, but I would like to challenge the premise a bit. Which laws of nature are you referring to? The laws of Quantum Mechanics or the Laws of General Relativity? I hope you are aware that these two theories dominate the discussion of the way the world works. Quantum Mechanics deals with the subatomic world and General Relativity deals with large objects. They both work very, very well; yet, we also know they are incompatible. You cannot extend General Relativity's laws into the Quantum world, because they do not work well there and vice versa. This has troubled scientists, and, at least for a time and quite possibly still, the Holy Grail of science was a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) which brought these two areas into accord. It still hasn't been found, and, in fact, it is quite possible that it will never be. Why?
One must take up the study of mathematics for a little while, particularly the proof of a German mathematician by the name of Kurt Goedel. He wrote a rather short paper On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I where he proved the limitations of all but the simplest of systems of thought and logic. Goedel wrote the paper in such a way that its implications spilled over into the realms of not only mathematics but science and philosophy as well. Long and short of it, each and every system of thought is limited. It cannot cover all of the bases. Exceptions will always arise. Let that sink in a moment. (I direct your attention to Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design, where if you can overlook his poor attempts to play philosopher in the name of atheism, you can find a good intro explanation of a new concept in physics called “m-theory” where specific sets of scientific “laws” are used only within defined length scales since their inaccuracies are too great outside of these length scales.)
It is because of Goedel that the term scientific law has basically been abolished. (Ever wonder why Einstein’s theory of relativity is still called a theory after more than 100 years of successful testing, more than most any other accepted scientific theory had undergone in the past before being called a scientific law ?)The term is kept around out of respect for Newton and others who first formulated the concept; however, science does not talk in terms of certainty any longer because we have discovered that no law is always true at all times and in all circumstances. Again, take a moment to let that sink in.
When it comes to dealing with interactions in the world, scientists now talk in terms of probability. There is high probability and low probability. There are even cases of extremely minute probability--for instance the probability of a person being resurrected from the dead. It is highly improbable, but it is not impossible--at least according to science. In engineering, where scientific laws are applied to development of real world technologies, the use of probabilities and/or safety factors in design are always included to protect the public.
This means, Bob, unfortunately, your premise is flawed. However, the confusion is understandable and common.
First of all, the secondary education system performs a disservice to its students by teaching the "laws of physics" as if they were immutable truths instead of very accurate approximations best suited for use within certain limits. This "new" understanding became widespread in the practicing scientific community in the early decades of the 20th century but, unfortunately did not filter down to the masses. In addition, universities avoided teaching the full implications of Godel since they did not wish to sow uncertainty among their students who were struggling under heavy course loads. Nowadays, many university professors have never learned that much of Godel and proceed merrily along as if all things were determinant.
Secondly, there are some Christians who adopt a simplistic understanding of what they read in the Bible that cannot easily be defended. This is because as human beings we always "fill in the blanks" of everything we read in our attempts to understand. For most children, the Bible is understood as God performing a series of magic tricks without realizing that the magic tricks are their additions of what they have read to try to understand it. If a reader has not learned how to separate his "filling in of the blanks" from the actual written text, this reader can incorrectly misinterpret new learning as in conflict with what he believes is written in the Bible. Unfortunately, the public protests of some of these Christians get disproportionately high exposure, sometimes drowning out the majority of Christians who do not see any conflicts and are quite comfortable with both science and Christianity.
Thirdly, there are some in the atheistic community who cannot accept the fact that atheism is also a choice. This has to be troubling, if one believes in the infallibility of man or science and then discovers some of the limitations of science or of human thought. Often, some write a protest in defense of atheism by trying to use science and a childlike understanding of Christianity to prove their point. This has always failed and probably always will because neither science nor mankind is completely infallible. There are always choices that must be made.
The Christian faith does not rest upon the necessity of natural laws to be broken. In fact, it is quite compatible with what we have come to understand as the way the world works.
And as those of us who believe in God begin to understand more and more about how the world works, we marvel at God's handiwork. Far from a "God of the gaps" approach, we see intricacy and wonder. We are stupefied by the physical constants and how they are just right to support intelligent life. We marvel at how evolution brought about thinking, intelligent beings out of primordial, unthinking sludge. Far from dismissing what science has shown us about the natural world, we embrace what science has shown us about the majesty of God. It's not that difficult to be an intelligent person and believe in God--even the Christian God. Just ask Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)