Science, Faith and Reason

I’m currently reading “The Challenge of Jesus” by N T Wright, and he makes an interesting statement on p21. He says, “The Enlightenment notoriously insisted on splitting apart history and faith, facts and values, religion and politics, nature and supernature, in a way whose consequences are written into the history of the last two hundred years – one of the consequences being, indeed, that each of those categories now carries with it in the minds of millions of people around the world an implicit opposition to its twin, so that we are left with the great difficulty of even conceiving of a world in which they belong to one another as part of a single indivisible whole.” This got me thinking about the relationship between science and faith, or faith and reason (as it is often characterised), and I think he is certainly on to something. For some time now people, especially theists, have been trying to integrate faith and science or faith and history and books have been written attempting to do just that. Yet there is still, as Wright says, an opposition in the minds of many to the uniting of these ideas. Why is that?

This is not restricted to the secular world, either. Many Christian have this strange idea that if you know something then you cannot have faith, like if you prove the Bible correct historically or archaeologically then you no longer have faith in it because you have certainty. It’s like faith is at one end of the scale and certainty is at the other and we must avoid certainty in order to have faith! I think this is without doubt a mistaken view of what the Bible teaches about faith, and it leads many Christians to stick their heads in the sand and not engage with the culture because “you just have to have faith”.

In 1999 Stephen Jay Gould published “Rock of Ages” in which he formalised this notion when he advanced his idea of Non-Overlapping MAgisteria (NOMA), the idea that “the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap...” (Wikipedia). In this same year we see the National Academy of Sciences making a similar claim, “science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each” (Wikipedia). This idea seems to have taken root in the minds of many Christians and non-Christians alike, reinforcing the Christian’s previously stated aversion to fact and the non-Christian’s belief that the sciences have nothing of religious value to say.

Is this the true?

I don’t think so, although I think that there is perhaps some merit to this idea. As J P Moreland said at the Saddleback Apologetics Conference 95% of science has nothing to do with religion, and 95% of religion has nothing to do with science. For example, religion has nothing to say about the mechanics of an aircraft engine, and science has nothing to say about the atoning blood of Jesus. But what about that 5%? What about things like the origins of life on earth, or of the universe itself? These are areas where science and religion overlap, and you might find conflict here or you might not. Should we continue to attempt to separate the two? Is it even possible? I don’t think we can, nor should we try. For example. belief in a purely naturalistic explanation of origins (the Darwinian Hypothesis) is in conflict with the Genesis account that says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now, how God did it and how long He took are legitimate debates, but that God did it is an integral part of the Christian’s convictions, and a purely naturalistic view excludes God resulting in a conflict that needs to be resolved. This is a case where science and religion make claims about the same thing that are in conflict, and I don’t think it is enough to say, as some Christians have, that you just need to believe, whatever the evidence. I think we need to try and reconcile the two, we need to do our spade work, as Koukl says.

I think we have been seeing a shift in that direction for the last 20 years or so, a shift that is slowly gaining momentum, both in academia and in the public square. The ID movement would have to be a case-in-point, as they attempt to show that science points to a Designer, that science and faith can work together. Ministries like Greg Koukl’s “Stand to Reason” (www.str.org) and William Lane Craig’s “Reasonable Faith” (www.reasonablefaith.org) are efforts to show that faith and reason go hand in hand, indeed that reason can be a support for faith, and have been very successful in doing so, at least in my opinion. Craig often points to the radical shift since the ‘70s in philosophy which is seeing many more believers take posts in university philosophy departments and has led to a resurgence of philosophy as a tool that can lead us to God I think this is what’s needed from the Christians – engage with the culture, don’t hide from it. What’s needed from the scientific community is an abandonment of their policy of scientific naturalism that, to use Richard Lewontin’s words, doesn’t “allow a divine foot in the door” (NY Times, 1997). The documentary “Expelled” is a great example of what happens to scientists in secular universities who question this approach. I think scientists should be free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. All options should be considered, and the one that has the best explanatory scope should be the one presented, regardless of naturalistic preconceptions.

Can we see this conflict ending anytime soon? I’m not sure. Dr Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute disagrees. He thinks the tide is turning. In an interview with Greg Koukl (available from the website) he predicts that we will see this paradigm shift in his lifetime! That’s a pretty big claim, and I sure hope he’s right!

SCIENCE - What can we really say?

First, please excuse the amount of time between posts. It’s been busy around here and I consider that extra cause for thanks.

Dave’s last post brings us very nicely into a most important point in our series. Some roads in our apologetic walk should not be trod upon. You will quickly find yourself in a mire. The same can be said for scientific claims. As J.P. Moreland points out in the Saddleback conference, about 95% of science has nothing to do with theology and 95% of theology has nothing to do with science. There is some overlap mind you, and we shall explore much of that overlap as we proceed. But it needs be known that just because someone is a scientist does not mean he or she can say they have disproved God. And there are many Christian believers (or Jewish or Muslim) who just as mistakenly say, ‘I can give you proof for God.’

This is most important. Write this down; it is childishly simple: There is no proof or disproof for God. There is no one who can come to you and say, “I can prove to you that God does not exist.” Nor is there is anyone who can say, “I can prove God exists.”

C.S. Lewis once (quite seriously) quipped, ‘the day that someone can offer proof for God it will likely be too late, for it will be the Last Day.’ We have other articles on faith here at Timor Dei, but the gist is that belief in God or disbelief in Him, must be just that: a belief. If the existence of God were so easily known, we would not have a choice in knowing of Him at all.

Now, it is not a matter of knowing of God with which Christianity concerns itself, but knowing Him, i.e personally, having an intimate relationship with Him. There is a difference. I can know of a beautiful woman, or I can know her. By merely knowing of a woman I may never actually speak to her. However, in knowing her personally, I can come to know her quite intimately and even become engaged and marry her. Then our knowledge of each other really begins to grow, but not without consequence on our lives mind you; I must make concession for her and she for me. That need not be the case for someone of whom I am merely aware exists. (In fact, quite happily for them, most beautiful women don’t know I exist!)

I digress. My point here is that if there were proof of God, then we must know of His incredible majesty and beauty as the Creator of all, including our consciences, our reason and emotions, all wonder, good and love (not evil, but that is a different argument - see WHAT GOOD IS EVIL?) so, just as a man may be overwhelmed by a beautiful woman, so would we be overwhelmed by God. He is our ultimate joy or our ultimate fear. And were He undeniably real, than so would His majesty be and our love for Him would, too, be entirely thorough, though it would not be ours, so to speak, for we would have no choice in the matter. In order for our love for Him to be real love, so great and real a God is He that He must stay hidden. Love must be a choice. That is a wondrous first clue to His love, that He honors you enough to give you a choice. You don’t have to believe. And for that, too, I love Him.

So, Christianity cannot say, “I can prove God.” Nor can science say it disproves God. Science as we will see cannot make statements about 'metaphysical' things. It can, at times, answer the how, but not the why; giving reason does not answer purpose.

But what we, as witnesses can say is, ‘I can give you some very convincing clues, both scientifically and theologically that I would like you think about.’ The evidence we do have, the universe and life as we do know it, as we experience it, I believe that the theological answer is the answer that best fits what we know reality to be. Ultimately, nothing we say can ever convince anyone of the truth of God anyway; that isn’t our job. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to do that and He is best at it. So let Him do His work and let us get busy doing ours.

Homosexuality: nature or nurture? Part 1

In keeping with our theme of going Science Mad, and as a follow up to James’ post on homosexuality, I thought it might be good to examine this idea that homosexuality is a product of nature, a genetically determined behaviour, rather than a choice. But first – why are we doing this? Why the posts on homosexuality? It’s not because we hate gays, nor is it because we fear them. We believe that the homosexual lifestyle is not the one God intended for His creations to live in, just as He didn’t intend for us to live in drunkenness or addicted to drugs, or in any type of sinful lifestyle. We want to see all people fulfil the potential God has for them, and for some people what stands in their way is their sexual orientation. With that said, let’s move on!

The idea that sexual orientation is determined by genes is put about by many homosexuals and gay rights activists, but does it really hold water? I don’t believe it does for four reasons: firstly, the search for the so-called ‘gay gene’ has, as yet, proved unfruitful; secondly, children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be gay, suggesting that nurture, not nature, is at work; thirdly, it is possible for a person to change their sexual orientation; and finally because of the propaganda put about by the people behind the gay rights movement in the 80s. Let’s examine the first three here, and the fourth in Part 2.

The search for the ‘gay gene’:
Despite much fanfare in the media in 1993 when Professor Dean Harmer published his initial findings in the journal Science suggesting a link between homosexual behaviour and genetics, little more has been discovered in the intervening 16 years to support his claims. Indeed, the following year the same journal published this by Yale’s Dr Joel Gelernter (speaking about the repeatability of studies like Harmer's), “All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute.” In line with Dr Gelernter’s thoughts, a study done by the University of Western Ontario, again in Science, showed no support for “the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation”. In more recent times, the research is no closer to consensus. Dr Alan Sanders, a psychiatric geneticist, said in an article published in 2008 on the ABC news website that “the evidence is pretty convincing already that a substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics”. Yet his colleagues at the American Psychological Association disagree. The APA publish this in their brochure “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality”: “no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....", which is a revision of their position in 1998 that there is considerable evidence that biology plays a significant role. So it seems we have scientists on both sides, with neither clearly in the lead. Indeed, one needs to look not just at the data, but also the interpretation. For example, commenting on a study that found “if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases”, which the authors claim is proof of genetic link, Billings and Beckwith claim it is “strong evidence for the influence of the environment”. This is a good point with which to move on from the undecided genetics to my second point.

Children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be gay:
In a 1999 comparative study of 39 children in 27 lesbian families versus a control group of heterosexual families published in the journal Developmental Psychology, 15% of children in the lesbian families went on to have same-sex relationships compared with none of the children in the heterosexual families. Compare that 15% to less than 1% of the general population who are gay. Additionally, other children from the lesbian families stated that they had either already considered, or thought it likely that they would at some point in the future, having a ‘same-gender sexual relationship’.

A person can change their sexual orientation:
The most recent edition (March 2009) of Essential Psychopathology and its Treatment states, “While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003)” (p488). If it is possible that sexual orientation can be changed, not just ignored but changed, and that such a change does not produce harm in the subject, then that lends weight to the idea that it is not genetics at work. After all, how can one change a behaviour that is determined by genes? The genes cannot be changed, not by the methods at work here, in any case.

That brings us to the conclusion of Part 1. Stay tuned for Part 2, where I look at the way in which the gay rights activists have promoted homosexuality over the last few decades.

In this series Previous | Next

Science - part 1

Mad Science and Flawed Logic

An astrophysics student studying for his PhD went to his advisor concerning his doctoral thesis. “Ma’am, I have two theories I’d like to explore but I’d like your advice on which to choose.”
“Enough research will tend to support your theory,” the Professor said.
“But I haven’t told you what they are yet…”

It’s an old gag, sorry for not showing any originality there. And truth be told, that line of thought, i.e. whatever the idea, enough facts can be found to support it, is at least as old as Aristotle if not older, and certainly isn’t limited to the sciences. But we will notice that much of what we view as authoritarian (or just claims authority) has no sway over a matter save what we give it. Rhetoric can powerfully manipulate any audience. It remains a necessary and beneficial tool in presenting any argument, whether scientific, theological, cultural, etc.

So, in the end, we hope here to constructively and, at least insomuch as possible, objectively, demonstrate what can and cannot be attested to by science, what bounds are real and which are imagined, should we construct some, should we tear some down, which have been crossed and which should we cross? In effect, what claims are pseudo-science, which qualify as meta-physical and in the middle of all this, we are certain to find there are certain questions science cannot answer. Into the fray we venture.

Warp speed, Mr. Sulu.

Over the coming weeks, several interviews are lined up with some Christian scientists… wait, no, lemme rephrase that, with some scientists who are Christian. Yes, that is much better. Anywho, I hope they prove interesting. I know at least two are promising; the rest I cannot yet tell because we haven’t completed them. If they fall flat, we’ll throw in some more Futurama quotes and irrelevant humor. (Editor’s Note: No, none of that, we are going to be pointing out logical fallacies, not making them I hope.)

Boundaries?

There are certain rules of logic that are broken in debate, sometimes unintentionally, often quite intentionally. The logical fallacy has its place in speech and persuasion, and though it may be used in advancing a theory in the natural sciences, it should not display its head by thrusting those theories upon us as fact. Logical fallacy has many forms and some downright tongue-twisting names. When I was a wee lad, we had to study it though not as much as my old man did when he was a young man. Aristotle’s Rhetoric proves a good read if not difficult; a lighter and more enjoyable lesson would be Madsen Pirie’s entertainingly witty “How to Win Every Argument; The Use and Abuse of Logic.” In fact, go out and buy it now. I’m using the Jedi Mind Trick on you. Do it.(What? You mean it doesn’t work? And I spent all that time practicing!)

After studying up a bit, its easy to point out fallacies in argument. Why is that important? Well, let’s look at one example to start us off. To whet our appetite, some things propounded by one the world's best know atheist scientists, Richard Dawkins: Dawkins holds to “universal Darwinism,” meaning basically, as he so famously sums up, ‘[the universe] has no design, no purpose; no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference’ (Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. page 133) He avoids apparent fallacy (in this case, the ever-present petition principii, i.e. “begging the question”) by keeping “purpose” out of it in saying there are no 'ought to’s' in life. But on close inspection he has committed the same fallacy he wishes to avoid – and seemingly hates so much coming from “dyed-in-the-wool faith heads” – by expressing what cannot be empirically known. ‘There ought not be any oughts. How is it one man, or 6 billion men for that matter, would know if there is purpose or not in life, the universe and everything. If he is genius enough to know, let him answer, but I fear genius has nothing to do with it. Dawkins' vantage point would have to allow him, not only access to, but the ability to retain the knowledge of, all things, every action of every person, animal, atom, everywhere, for all time. In short, Dawkins claims omniscience. He claims to know what no mortal can. (Maybe he isn't denying God, so much as to who holds the job title...)

It’s a circular argument. Though for someone omniscient, he contradicts himself later in “The God Delusion,” saying that religion must be an ‘accidental by-product’ of some otherwise useful evolutionary process. (p.188) However, 'accident' denotes malfunction of purpose. Hmmm. No purpose, purpose. Looks like Dawkins should stay out of meta-physics and theology. (Maybe I should to, come to think of it.)

Is this the case for all science? Certainly not. Do not think for one minute that is where we are going. Fundamentalists on both sides, atheist and religious alike, will start to make statements that the other is evil and should be done away with. That is precisely the attitude we are trying to dismiss. But before we start, we need to know that we are on a level playing field. Next time I'm going to tackle what religion can and cannot say as well, focusing largely on Christian theologians and apologetics and absolute existential statements made by both sides.

This introduction to Science has turned out to be more of an intro to logic, but we shall see that logic, religion, theology, psychology and world view will all play very heavily in the next few weeks’ discussions. Stay tuned and we will delve deeper through the mire! Feel free to ask questions anytime, criticize where you see mistakes (‘cause I make ‘em a bunch) or just join in the fun. The question forum is at the right or you can leave comments below!