The Relation of Science and "Religion" in Popular Society

"What is the motivation for trying to take a religious philosophy and influence what goes on in science?"

Let's answer this question.  For one, I want to say I agree with quite a bit about what Neil Degrasse Tyson thinks about science education.  Science education should be well-funded for the public school system in order to have educated and literate generations.  This is the functional purpose for the common good that public schools offer us.  Now for a point of disagreement...yes, "even atheists" do what he said they don't, and a cursory examination of history will show that for being a non-religion, atheism can be violent, extreme, very ANTI-religion.  One popular example of organized atheism violently against Christianity in particular comes in the form of the Reign of Terror in France.

 

Where do I agree with Tyson?  Having been in the science classroom and dealt with science education, I would definitely say that while state standards are high, often it is individuals' standards which are low.  I made due with what I had during my brief stint as a long-term substitute and even had to rewrite a portion of the textbook on evolution and history of life because it was just so bad!  I also had high standards, helping Chemistry students move from balancing chemical equations (somehow they had been told to do so WITHOUT using ratios) to the Combined Gas Law.  I even had students in freshman biology understand Punnet Squares and genetics enough to do a 3 trait square.  Furthermore, I am not a happy camper when it has come to the defunding of space travel and the taking of resources from scientific research in that area.  I am also very interested not just in technology, but in the work being done in green technology and ways to make such moves sustainable.  So something needs to be gotten out of the way right now...I'm not suggesting any move in science curricula right now.  In fact, I'd say that the real issue here is metaphysics and its confusion with science and religion.  Let me explain.

Let's point out the elephant in the room (at least to me):  Other fields of study in science.  Clearly Tyson allows for his love of economic growth in this country (a form of Nationalism) drive why he believes science should be done properly.  Of course he believes in science for other reasons personally, but he conveys it pragmatically.  That's the first.  The other, he doesn't bring up how mad he is at math, English, and sociology in the science classroom.  Clearly these are not necessarily science proper and should be abandoned.  Of course, Tyson would never suggest that.  This actually makes science a sort of medieval philosophy stand-in, being as it were, the "Queen of the Sciences" in its own right.  The modern mythology is one of pure scientific progress (listen to how many scientists talk about the scientific endeavor) that operates only from reason and evidence.  But let's be real...it doesn't.  And on top of the fact that any progress in science is only particular for the given time period until it is shown to be false.  Surely evidence would tell the ancients that the earth was the geometric center of the universe...point of view, common experience of moving objects, etc.  Science of the day would clearly favor an Earth-centered system...period.  Hell, it matched the senses too!  But reality was, eventually it was overturned by further investigation...and here is where this idea of science as pure reason and evidence runs into problems.  What is evidence?  How much evidence do we have?  The main reason science can speak with such authority has to do with its privileged place (and not unjustly earned) in society.  Religion used to do this as well, then philosophy, and finally science.  All have had their time in the sun, and it would be foolish to not think that new discoveries will constantly overturn many things we have known.  Thought Absolute Zero was the lowest we could get things?  Sorry, wrong!  Thought human anatomy was most likely finished with its work?  Sorry, wrong again!  The list can truly go on and on.  But here is the problem...many people including Tyson are confused about what science does.

Does science tell us how the world works?  No...it tells us about an event being tested. Don't believe me?  Did you see the sun rise yesterday?  Ok, did you see the sun rise the day before?  Now, this doesn't seem too big of a deal until I get to before you were born.  Did you see the sun rise then?  No you didn't!  Aw snap!  How do you know it did?  You were told it by an authority and/or you took it for granted as happening in the past as it happened today.  Usually a good assumption.  How old is the world according to modern geology?  4.53 billion years you say!!!  Well I can safely say I've only been able to directly observe the sun rising 6.84 x 10^-9 of the time, or 0.000000684% of the life of the Earth.  Those aren't good odds to base a probability on...but we ALWAYS do.  But wait, you might say this is a reasonable assumption, but I want to ask why?  Why not think the earth has always existed and the sun always risen as happens even when we don't see it?  You postulate a beginning to our planet, but there are also different competing theories about that...and the fact is not one of them needs to be correct.  Think about that.  It's not just the nebular hypothesis vs some other theory of our planet's formation, it could be a ton of different hypotheses and yet there is only one reality.  And even if this is true that we know this in a progressive way, what is to stop us from having a different revolution in understanding?  Newton rocked the universe of physics, and was concurrently rocked by Einstein...who knows what rocking will be done in the future?  The truth of the matter is that science is an induction of particular events to a universal statement of the world, and it is never absolute.  This is why we need to put explanations derived from science into theories.  Theories are models to explain the different observations and experiments we have drawn from science.  This is awesome and needs to be done, but first and foremost, Dr. Tyson and many others who have this view of religion and science are absolutely in error about how science really works and its relation to the world.  At this point, atheistic apologists will add "but that's what makes science so much better than religion, it can change based on evidence."  Frankly, that just means science is eternally ignorant and this argument is arrogant about its ignorance.  And its willingness to change about certain things that touch on fundamental aspects of the methodological turned metaphysical naturalism of science leaves me in doubt.  

Moral superiority cannot be based on knowledge of ignorance alone.  Even the willingness to change means you'll change at the first hint of evidence or rather how strong it is based on your own idea of what is "strong."  The same can be said for many people and their belief or non-belief in God.  Whenever I hear an atheist or agnostic talk about "there's no evidence for God" I'm always taken aback at the statement...if I could put God into a test tube and show Him to you, you'd doubt His being truly God...same thing if I put God to another test...this would destroy His personhood and make Him just a natural law or something.  What evidence are you talking about?  Seriously, think about what evidence you are talking about.  If you are purely a materialist who uses materialistic methods of epistemology, you have de facto written out supernatural entities or causes...no amount of evidence can overthrow that starting point save direct address, and even this might lead you to consult a psychologist or psychiatrist first...maybe with good reason depending on how often that actually does NOT happen.  Although, perhaps it can be done, but the threshold at which this occurs is fuzzy.

Also, "religion" or even that "dead philosophy" can actually give grounding reason for the drive and study of the world with science.  I love science because I believe not only that a rational being designed and made the world, but that He made it intelligible and that my being the image of God involves the deification of nature by our rational investigation of it using our logos.  I also have a view to the future, both involving stewardship and a fuller vision of the world and its future, one based more solidly than on some ethical empathy for a person I don't know either across the world or in the future.  On top of that, the practical element still is at the forefront of this thought.  The idea of technological (not necessarily scientific) progress is integral to our being human beings who are told to be fruitful.  This is reason enough to not simply discard religious thought from the scientific enterprise...and if you're lucky, we could include math and linguistics in this discussion to.  But no history, oh God help you if I find history in my science class...DANGIT!  Geology!!!  

POSTSCRIPT:  In the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham a little while ago, Nye said there was no distinction between operational and historic science.  Please refer to ATHEIST Arthur Strahler's book Understanding Science from Prometheus Books for your thorough education about the philosophy of science and the necessity of the distinction.

Subcultures - or Why the Rhetoric of One Often Sounds Like the Opposite Group

Of course one can read the above picture and disagree with what it says about either subculture you belong to (or of course, if you belong to neither it doesn't apply to you).  Of course Christianity views the resurrection of the dead as being something totally different than zombies.  Of course most Atheists don't believe that nothing existed before the big bang because energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed according to our understanding of physics.

Now let's get real...this is bumper sticker stuff...it sells but doesn't communicate anything other than, "we're part of the same subculture, HIGH FIVE!!!"  Rarely does this mentality lead to unbiased discussion and dialogue, regardless of how rational we might view ourselves (sorry Free Thinkers) or how enlightened we view ourselves (sorry, well...all groups actually).  The same stupid rhetoric sneaks its way into EVERY subculture that finds itself at odds with either the larger culture or another subculture...look on Youtube comments if you don't believe me.  I've seen ad hominems attacking people on the right or left politically regardless of whatever country you are in.  This is a failure of logic, and really represents an inability for a given subculture to have honest discussion outside of their own group...and we ALL do this.  My response, "get out more."  For example, I've watched a Youtube video that claims one possible reason most game show hosts are conservative is that they are rich, old, white guys.  What is being implicitly stated here is that rich, old, white guys have more of a chance of being conservative.  While I think this is a thinly veiled modus ponens fallacy (or Affirming the Consequent)...or at best he's reaching for a correlation/causation thing which I don't think can be demonstrated with mathematical accuracy.  Of course in the interest of fairness, one can find conservative examples of logical fallacies.  That being said, look at the comments of his video?  They are mostly logical fallacies!  Very few people respond back who disagree for several reasons.  Typically, what will happen is what I like to call, the "atom bomb accusations," or a list of ad hominems targeted NOT TO THE PERSON who is being disagreed with necessarily, but meant to evoke an emotion of detestation and distrust of the message through name-calling and show-stopping.  These often take these words in the modern era:

1) zealot

2) racist

3) bigot

4) homophobic

5) socialist

6) fascist

7) extremist

8) intolerant

And the list goes on.  Sometimes of course, someone truly is one of these labels, but if you're going to call someone that, truly demonstrate it before you drop it.  And to those who read and follow these, do us all a favor...learn some logic and don't be swayed by these labels before you make up your mind.on a given issue.

Now, I'm off to a dog and pony show (not literally).  here's a video of logical fallacies and examples to keep you busy!!!

  

Philosophy is Dead...I'd Like a Second Opinion!

This is an interesting video regarding the relationship of philosophy to science.  I want to respond eventually with an in-depth analysis of the main issue.  The simple fact is that modern Scientism can't seem to be self-critical of its own methods or even whether it does or does not "progress."

And a Cloud Took Him Out of Their Sight

It's that time again...40 days after Pascha/Easter - The Feast of Ascension.  

"Raised to the glory and authority of God, the Man-Christ still remains man in the truest sense of the word and also the man-model to be attained by all who believe in Him.  By believing in His co-suffering with us, which at the same time is His power that permeates and elevates our being, the believers ask Him for His 'mercy,' according Him all the glory: 'Lord have mercy.'  In this expression one finds also the acknowledgement of Him as our Master and that this Master is infinitely merciful and loving, and therefore approachable for us" (Staniloae, Dumitru. The Experience of God III:152).

"It shall come to pass in the latter days
    that the mountain of the house of the Lord
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
    and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
    and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
    to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
    and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go the law,
    and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." - Is. 2:2-3 ESV (Vesperal reading).

Troparion: O Christ God, You have ascended in Glory, / Granting joy to Your disciples by the promise of the Holy Spirit. / Through the blessing they were assured / That You are the Son of God, / The Redeemer of the world! 

Great talk on the Ascension by Fr. Thomas Hopko.

Duons - A "Second" Genetic Code

This is already old news, but I did find this discovery fascinating...and potentially game-changing in how we understand cellular activity and regulation.  No commentary, but it's getting a little harder to not see the genetic code (now codes) as having no analog to "information" science.

God's Not Dead - Faith and Skepticism Podcast Addendum

Never have I found such peace to think about the past few days than a scummy motel in a very small town in Northern Illinois.  I'm alone, and I feel great to be so.  The world can be so demanding, and I don't have my thoughts organized, my heart stilled, and I end up worrying and stressing about things I either cannot fix or are outside of my control...and this is deadly, for can we add any hour to our life by worrying?

To start with, I sit here rather than with my friend who is awaiting his marriage in several days.  Currently he sits with his fiance who is in the hospital.  True love consists not in how we handle the good times and sexual desires that accompany them, but in how we bear the cross that the one we love suffers and carries.

One might wonder why I put a video to several selections from the desert fathers of Egypt (and some non-Egyptian) about prayer and the heart/mind.  The reason will show itself as this discussion continues.  On Tuesday night of this week, I was privileged to again partake of good discussion with Nathan Reese and Jason Ramey on the Faith and Skepticism Podcast.  They had invited me to do a podcast a few weeks earlier on the development of the Christian canon of Scripture along with another Christian named Sam who lives in the Twin Cities, and Dr. Robert Price.  The discussion was good, albeit short, but was civil, respectful, and genuinely communicated as best as scholars sometimes can given the breadth of a topic.  The most recent podcast however was dealing with "Christian pop-culture" generally, and the film "God's Not Dead" (see earlier review).

The podcast could have been better, but some things were brought up which would best be answered in another medium.  The philosophical arguments of the film were not really covered, and that is fine.  I would much rather have talked about a stronger argument for theism being the intelligibility of the created world through abstract and reasoned concepts such as numbers and shapes apart from and applied to physical reality with precision and accuracy that involves both "real numbers" and "irrational numbers."  This is one of the most pivotal questions in my opinion for the operation of a science that has a grounding in true reason and reality (through both the Logos and our being created His image and thus given the gift of reason).

Among two issues that arose, both during the podcast, and after (not recorded) revolved around how youth in a conservative Christian culture come to terms with being gay.  There were also discussions involving how a conservative Muslim family is portrayed in the movie and what the intention was on the part of the filmmakers.

One of the speakers suggested that it was in the movie as fear-mongering.  Perhaps, but I think a more accurate and full view of the characters should involve the young Chinese student.  Obviously the movie at the end shows all of them, the Muslim girl, Josh, and the Chinese student at a Newsboys concert singing about God. This is a message in my opinion that the message of the Gospel transcends cultural boundaries.  It is meant for the whole world and can be liberating (the message itself, not necessarily how it is practiced) which is also why the pastor had an African friend present with him.  All ethnic groups were represented in a Christian light.  At the same time, perhaps it was not the best choice to portray the father beating and casting out his daughter, but I will still defend that the movie shows him as a figure to have compassion on. His world with regard to his daughter is ending.  She converted and left the faith which was an anchor for him.  Many immigrant cultures understand that apart from religion, language is the key to holding onto an identity of where they came from, and sadly this cultural influence is often severely diminished if not wiped out in 2-3 generations, regardless of how strict the family is.  The father is attempting to hold onto the truth and culture he brought with him...he SAYS AS MUCH at the beginning of the film to his daughter.  He also weeps for her, which humanizes him.  He is not following Sharia like a terrorist...he isn't honor killing her.  He is reacting I would argue more from a minority group who feels threatened in this country and culture rather than that it is meant to draw hate mongering from the viewers.  Islam, while I believe it to be incorrect, has a tremendous intellectual and philosophical tradition, and this should be respected for anyone who ever delves into such a topic.  The situation with these characters was actually more nuanced in my opinion than originally appears.

The second however was with regard to whether or not Christians do this, and it was reapplied to both atheists and/or homosexuals.  I will unabashedly say that this happens...it is a fact.  Christians can be sinful and do immense harm just like any other sinful human being (contrary to what the film seems to show about them).  At the same time, understanding homosexuality in youth and atheism or religious conversion/deconversion in general is highly complex and cannot simply be boiled down to either "they should be like they were born to be or are" (which runs a fine line to saying I should continue to be a codependent because it is who I am either genetically, epigenetically, or behaviorally) or "they are just into drugs and rebellion."  The prior argument is often given with little thought to the insanity of it being applied to other factors of life consistently, and the latter argument ignores that it is often just a sign of something else much deeper and personal.  Many factors such as abuse, early experimentation, societal or peer influence, hormone imbalance, etc. could lead to such a decision, lifestyle, or predilection.  In fact, there could be the shock and horror that they are "convinced(!)" of another way or disagree with yours or their parents.  There is simply not enough known about it to predict or explain it.  Nevertheless, my point in the podcast was, and still is, that these are human beings created in the image of God.  Truly if we saw them as struggling with and "choosing" a sin at this age, they would be considered "the least of these" and deserving of love and mercy.  On this point, Dan was spot-on.  But the problem is by saying "the church does this" or even Christians saying "the other side does it too! ("they" do it as well), this is the equivalent of complaining about how to build a bridge without realizing that people need to cross it anyway to get the the hospital on the other side.  Our children are our children, regardless of what they choose...this is mercy and forgiveness more in keeping with the father of the parable of the Prodigal Son.  When the son asks for his inheritance, he asks for his father's bios, what was HIS to take.  He's telling his father he really would be happy if he would just feed the worms already (btw, the older son does this as well).  When the son goes off to a far-off land...the father doesn't chase after him...he lets him do what he believes he needs to do.  The father has done his due diligence to teach his son right from wrong, but the final decision is the son's.  There is a point where, victim or not, born this way or not, we are ALL accountable for our choices and actions....and this is where the desert fathers come in.

Many might be surprised that there are homosexual bishops and monks...but it makes sense.  Marriage is not about who we love in terms of either sex or friendship...it is about complimentary companionship and bearing one anothers' cross so we can learn to die to ourselves.  Marriage and monasticism (that "curse" of celibacy) are two paths to the same goal.  The monks and the bishops (chosen from the monks) have both the highest control over the church, and help to illuminate us and support us through prayer.  The idea or thought that "we are just now discovering that homosexuality is lifelong" is thoroughly refuted by any study of the desert fathers and their view of temptation, addiction, and the logoi of the human heart/mind.  Ask ANY priest worth his weight who has been at his job for a while and I will be willing to bet a dollar to a donut hole that he understands life-long temptation better than anyone...and not just the ones dealing with sex.  In fact, the fact that homosexuality was struggled with is present in the early desert fathers.  There are sayings with regard to spending the night in a brother's cell, or not growing a beard (thus appearing more feminine), and even the story of St. Anthony the Great's temptation of a young Nubian/Ethiopian boy in his bed, which communicate that the desert fathers were intimately familiar with struggles.  Sex and sexual temptation is just one aspect of the passion of concupiscence or lust.  There are also the sins of anger (irascibility) and also vainglory.  The fact is not that the youth are sinful because they have such desires...this is their cross to bear, just as for another, extreme anger is theirs, another might be bereft of homeland and parents, or not having limbs is another's.  We are ALL sinful, for there is no one who is without sin, even the Mother of God herself had original sin!  But we are loved by God and shown a way that is to true love of both God and neighbor, and ultimately ourselves, for we are to find humility in the fact that we are equally if not more sinful than any other human being.  Our sin and its depth however can drive us to despair, this is true...but Christ entered into our humanity to experience our temptations and touch all of our essence, thus restoring His image in us.  There is no sin beyond forgiveness, save "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," which is the rejection of the very gift that can save and heal.  It is not forgiven, because God will not force this salvation on us...for love cannot be forced.

How can we seek such humility?  How can Christ save others through this very humility?  Because the image of God pointed to Christ in our minds reflects His love to all from out of us.  As St. Seraphim of Sarov said, "acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved."  Perhaps in this we find the strongest evidence for the existence and LOVE of God (and this is something which Dostoyevsky portrayed with Elder Zossima), by the fact that in a world of selfishness, destruction, sin, hate, etc...there is genuine love for those who not only cannot return it, but who don't because they hate...that is a genuine miracle.  The sad fact is that we look at all the bad in the world, saying "God cannot exist," or "God cannot be a God of love and mercy," and yet when we see a genuine saint or person who gives love to one in need, we feel the need to rob this answer from God and make it simply a humanistic endeavor.  Job wasn't given an answer that he wanted, but he did get an answer...and while it was not in his desired way...it was the right answer to his question.

Sixty Minutes Special on Mount Athos

This was made a few years ago, and it always catches me about how beautiful the island is.  On top of the book (Mountain of Silence) by Kyriakos Markides which was written while he was still a secularist, Mount Athos has come alive to a level that makes me want so much to visit it.