Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Scientific Method

Thursday, June 12th, 2008

Bill Curry had a curious letter to the editor published June 10th edition of the paper that sponsors this blog. It was in response to a letter from someone who objected to the paper publishing a Phyliss Schlafly column supporting Ben Stein’s movie Expelled about creationism.  I read the Bible every day too and believe that God created everything, just not in the literal fashion that creationists like Mrs. Schlafly and Mr. Curry claim.

Mr. Curry took off on a revisionist history trip in an effort to connect science and Christianity.  He wrote that Bible-based Christianity is responsible for modern science because many of the scientists during the Scientific Revolution (16th century) were Christians. Credible historians do see a connection, but not the one that Mr Curry asserts. The connection is that the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Counter-Revolution, the discovery of the new world, the fall of Constantinople, and the rediscovery of Aristotle undermined the status quo. It was finally politically acceptable (no more inquisitions) to challenge established thought and a new age of scientific discovery began.

Stranger yet, he claimed that the scientific method was inspired by a Bible quote. This is curious on two counts. First, historians attribute the scientific method to al-Haytham, a first millenium Muslim Arab widely regarded as the first scientist. Second, this same method is the foundation for the theory of evolution and the reason why the vast majority of the scientific world rejects creationism.

I do agree with Mr. Curry that science is revealing many wonderful insights every day that strongly suggest God’s presence, but scientific discovery is something we all share as humans.  It is part of our wiring.  Though it may be the result of individual inspiration, it is generally not attribued to prayer or spiritual belief.  It dates back to the discovery of fire – well before the invention of writing.  As a result, it is shared by all cultures and religions.

Finally in an effort to establish his position that good science is based on a belief in God, Mr. Curry took a swipe at Buddhism saying that the reason there aren’t any well known Buddhist scientists is because Buddhism is an atheist religion.  This is just wrong on so many points that I don’t know where to start.  It may be better to just leave you with a quote from one of our greatest modern scientists,

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.” Albert Einstien

Posted in Bias, Religious Conservatism, Science | No Comments »

Maid Arise

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

“And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.  And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.  And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.  And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat. And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.” Luke 8:52-56

 

Recent news has raised a fundamental question regarding religion and the rights of parents.

 

The most recent case was a polygamist sect in Texas.  There were claims that girls below the legal age of consent were being forced to marry older men.  As the result of an anonymous phone call, now regarded as a hoax, the state of Texas protective services got a court order to take all of the kids except for newborn babies away from their parents.  That order was overturned by the Texas appeal courts because Texas protective services was unable to prove that the children were actually at risk.

 

There are also usually a couple of cases a year where parents choose to pray rather than involve a physician in the care of their children.  The state intervenes in an attempt to force a particular course of medical treatment when it appears the child’s life may be at risk.

 

In cases of child custody, the state usually has a significant bias, based on research, against removing a child from their mother’s care.  Generally that preference is overcome only when the state feels that the child may be at significant physical or emotional risk.  Just to put that in perspective, significant risk (as long as there is no obvious violence) has to be more than children whose parents are drug addicts or criminals.

 

As someone who believes in freedom of religion, the power of prayer, and cultural diversity; I’m really torn, because I’m also someone who believes that there is a role for government in modern society.  The temptations of personal gain are just too great for the private sector to handle in some cases.

 

In the case of monogamy, there is nothing explicit in the Bible prohibiting it.  Given the history of Abraham and others, however, I think that it is fairly obvious that if there were a problem with polygamy, it would have been spelled out pretty clearly in the same way as incest.  There are clearly other cultures in the world where polygamy is legal and appears to work fine for all involved.

 

Similarly, there are a lot of passages in both the old and new testament where prayer healed those whom the physicians had failed to heal.  There are also plenty of examples every day around the world of healing through prayer.

 

So in my mind, it comes down to culture and not religion.  We have a culture where monogamy is the only legal form of marriage in most places.  We also have culture where medical science is viewed as superior to prayer.

 

If you choose to be a polygamist, many people in our culture will assume that it is because (if you are a woman) you have been either brain-washed or coerced.  Similarly if you choose to rely on prayer to treat yourself and your family, you are assumed to be a delusional fanatic, or at least naïve and misguided.  So, in the interest of protecting children, we give the government fairly wide latitude to impose our cultural biases against both practices.

 

Imagine how the government would respond today if Jesus walked into a Ronald McDonald house and offered to heal all of the kids in there with terminal diseases.  What if He told them all to get out of their beds, pull out all of their tubes, get dressed, and call their parents for a ride home?  Just like Bethesda, some of the kids would believe Him and do as He asked and some wouldn’t.  As a result, some would be healed, and some would continue to depend on their physicians.  He, on the other hand, would likely get arrested and thrown in jail for reckless child endangerment.

 

So where do we draw the line between legitimate government involvement in the private lives of citizens and invasion of privacy/coercion to conform to the norms of the majority?

 

Posted in Politics, Religious Conservatism, Science | No Comments »

Evogod

Thursday, May 29th, 2008

“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” Deut 30:19

 

A Michigan evolutionary anthropologist has done some computer simulations examining the evolution of the concept of God.

 

I know that this may be troubling to some who have a hard time with the whole concept of evolution. 

 

I think that the premise and conclusion are both fascinating regardless of your view of evolution.  That’s because it suggests something special about us as a species.

 

There are two contending theories regarding the evolution of the concept of God.  One says that it is an artifact of a previous brain function that originally had a far more tangible use.  The other is that it is an adaptation.  In other words, the concept of God developed because those who believed in God benefited in some way compared to those who didn’t. 

 

The premise to prove that God is an adaptation is fairly simple.  There are things that you can prove and things that you can’t prove.  For primitive people, you can prove things like gravity by throwing a rock in the air.  Every time you throw it up, it comes back down.  This is verifiable information.  No similar proof exists for the existence of God.  So any claims about God are largely unverified.  

 

The question then is, what benefit would accrue to those who shared unverifiable information compared to those who only share verifiable information?

 

What the researcher found is that there was only one simulation which explains the current state of widespread belief in God.

 

The factor was that those who didn’t believe were somehow attracted to those that did.  So those who did believe were benefited by getting more support from the community that those that didn’t.  This made it easier for believers to survive in greater numbers than non-believers. 

 

In other words, we may be hardwired at a very basic level to respect and admire the beliefs of others, even if we don’t share those beliefs.  

 

The researchers didn’t go into the concept of free will, but this seems a plausible and natural explanation for it.  All of us discover God in our own way based on our experience and our traditions.  God loved us so much that He gave us the ability to choose or reject Him.  But He also gave us a very simple appreciation for those who have already chosen so that this idea would have the opportunity spread and grow – one believer to another. 

 

We’re currently in a period of fanaticism and fundamentalism.  If the research is accurate, this period will pass.  Our normal and natural state is to cherish all believers.

Posted in Science | No Comments »

Potter’s Clay

Saturday, December 29th, 2007

“Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?” Isa. 29:16

There has been an ongoing spat in the editorial pages of the paper that sponsors this blog over the subject of evolution.

I understand that this is just another skirmish in the culture wars, but I just couldn’t resist a comment or two about it.

The whole idea that science somehow undermines God is in my estimation silly.

If you believe in God, almost by definition you also have to believe that there can be no power greater than God. Given that, then you also have to agree that God doesn’t need your help to defend Himself. He really does have it all under control.

Science isn’t about disproving the existence of God. Science is all about developing a deeper understanding of God’s creation and the truths that order that it. Science works because it continues to question the status quo without the limits of belief. If science discovers something that challenges current understanding, the old understanding is eventually abandoned and a new understanding takes it’s place.

Isn’t this what we Christians are supposed to be doing here too? We are supposed to be replacing the old earth-bound Adam with a new spiritual man. We work out our own salvation by increasing our understanding of who we are and how God is directing our lives. Every time that we become complacent because we think that we have it all figured out, God lovingly turns everything upside down. We regain our humility, agree that we don’t know as much as we thought we did, and resume our study and prayer.

Where religions and some Christians tend to jump the track is in feeling that they somehow have to spring to God’s defense when it is actually just their own beliefs, and not God that are being called into question.

Today’s creationists are the same folks who feared 400 years ago that God would somehow be undone if science disproved the Bible claim that the earth was the center of the universe. Just like the creationists, “devout” scientists in that age struggled to contain a growing body of scientific evidence within the belief system of a literal Bible. They failed then because they confused belief with science, and they are failing today for the same reasons.

A sun-centered universe eventually gave way to the big bang, but it did prove that the Bible is not nor was it ever intended to be a literal description of creation. God and the Bible, however, survived. That’s because God and His universe are in harmony and the Bible remains a sufficient guide to working out our place in that universe. The Bible remains relevant through the ages because it is NOT a scientific book. It is a spiritual book, a metaphor useful for instruction in whatever circumstance we find ourselves.

That’s why you can look at the current conflict between creationism and evolution as just another loving example of God patiently overturning a too narrow and literal reading of the Bible so that those who are reading it can make better use of it for their growth and understanding.

Posted in Religious Conservatism, Science | 7 Comments »

Wired for Good

Friday, December 14th, 2007

“And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.  But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.  Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.”  Luke 18: 15-17


Jesus told us 2000 years ago that infants reflected the purity and innocence of their Creator in ways that adults can only aspire to.   Now we find that infants are also born to value the acts of selfless kindness that are a key part of Jesus theology. 


Some Yale University researchers developed some clever experiments which demonstrated that 100% of six month olds and 87.5% of 10 months olds not only can recognize acts of charity, but also prefer those who have demonstrated that capability.  The 10 month old babies could also tell the difference between those who were kind and those who were cruel, and would get upset if the victim later associated with the cruel character rather than the kind one. 


I think it is wonderful to know that loving our neighbor as ourselves is a quality and sensitivity that every child is born with. 


One can’t help but wonder what forces cause us to lose that natural and beautiful characteristic.  What is it that causes us to distrust the good intentions of others and question their motivations?  What is it that tempts us to categorize those that we don’t agree with or understand as threats to our way of life?  How are we able to justify hurting others when we were born to love them? 


If we take these experiments at face value, children can tell the difference between kindness and cruelty both in acts and people at a very early age.  Perhaps every experience of cruelty erodes our childlike trust in the goodness of everyone.   


Whatever the cause, it is also true that this experiment supports the Bible claim that God made man in His image and likeness.  He make us wired to do good and appreciate every act of kindness that we witness.  Clearly if we want to follow Jesus Christ the way shower, we have to rediscover that good in ourselves and our neighbor. 


It all starts with what we now know is one of the most natural things we can do, a simple act of kindness.

Posted in Science | No Comments »