Will the Circle Be Unbroken?

I don’t know how it is in other disciplines, but in chemistry and physics, we talk about our Ph.D. advisors and their PhD advisors in genealogical terms. My advisor, Robert L. Kuczkowski, is my ‘father.’ His father is E. Bright Wilson (no relation, but a lot of fun for Dr. K to have Kuczkowski and Wilson on a whole new set of papers!). His father was none other than Linus Pauling, the famous chemist who won TWO Nobel Prizes, in Chemistry and the Peace Prize. So professionally speaking, Pauling is considered my great-grandfather. (The truth is that every PhD scientist has a famous ancestor within at most 4-5 generations—our tribe is still pretty small, so we aren’t that far removed from the makers of the original great discoveries.)

Here’s where the fun is—this semester, one of my undergraduate students is Pauling’s biological great-great nephew! Thus, I have the privilege of teaching science to a relative of one of the men partially responsible for my academic professional training.

Linus was out at CalTech, E. Bright was at Harvard, and Dr. K at Michigan, yet here in Texas, Pauling’s familial and academic progeny meet. It’s kind of a cool feeling.

SDG

Solomon Sympathizes

For some strange reason, student stress tends to increase about this time of year. We may need an NIH grant to fund research into why.

Regardless, on the last day of class, I flash the following quote up on the screen to encourage the students that their condition is normal and been around since ancient times. It also introduces Scripture to them in a humorous way, showing the wide variety of ways God knows human life. Feel free to use it yourself, I have no hold on the copyright.

“But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body.”

                                                                          Ecclesiastes 12:12

SDG

Vibrant Dance: Problems of Methodological Naturalism

This is the last post in the Vibrant Dance series, as far as I know now. The last two events were breakout sessions, and I was a TA at the last one, so didn’t take notes. I will offer a brief comment about it at the end, but I am ready to move on to a larger variety of topics. This blog will probably have a larger than normal posts related to science, since that is my field, but the intended audience includes all disciplines, so I try to be cognizant of that.

For the third breakout session, I attended one entitled, “Why it is a bad idea for Christians (or really anyone) to accept Methodological Naturalism,” presented by Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute. I was particularly interested in this one because as a scientist, I understand that MN is how we are to “DO” science, though I would refer to it more as NM or a naturalistic methodology. In other words, it is how I do my science rather than how I do my philosophy. It’s a semantic thing, but like in most fields, semantics are important because words have meaning, so the words we use communicate what we do and think.

Nelson started out with a definition or rule of MN from the National Academy of Sciences, “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes.” {emphases added} He proceeded to contrast methodological naturalism (MN) with philosophical naturalism (PN), which is illustrated in the previous paragraph. He then asked if many who advocate for MN don’t hold to the PN, why do they object to the idea of Intelligent Design?

He stated that these scientists, theologians and philosophers are worried about a problem of impotent causality—in other words, “such and so phenomenon ‘can’t ‘ happen by natural processes.” In short, they are concerned such explanations are a veiled god-of-the-gaps argument, which is a valid concern.

Furthermore, as explorers of the universe, we have several toolkits available to us to aid in our exploration. Two of these are “natural causes” and “intelligent causes.” We tend to keep these separate from each other—another example of NOMA. We tend to want to exhaust all natural causes before invoking intelligence, but it is logically impossible to eliminate ALL natural causes {versus all KNOWN natural causes}.

Yet, and however, we DO infer intelligent causes! But, we don’t do so by performing impossibilities. We simply bypass natural causes in some cases because the intelligence is so obvious that the natural possibility is logically ludicrous. {Basically, when you find an iPhone on the beach, you don’t start coming up with a naturalistic mechanism for the construction of a theoretical missing link between the sand and the iPhone, you start looking for a human being who may have dropped it.}

In spite of this, there is a paradigm that defines the types of problems that can/should be tackled scientifically and also what types of solutions to these problems are acceptable, and Intelligent Design is simply not part of those things. (Think back to the ‘must’ and ‘only’ qualifiers from the NAS.) This limitation actually goes back to Thomas Henry Huxley, a friend of Darwin’s, the founder of the journal, Nature, coiner of the phrase “agnostic,” and grandfather to Aldous, the author of Brave New World. He is the one credited with defining science as MN. Interestingly, he actually doubted many of Darwin’s claims, but liked his theory anyway because it avoided all of that teleological stuff.

So how was science defined before Huxley redefined it? Newton said it thus, “Where natural causes are at hand, God uses them as instruments in His work, but I do not think them sufficient alone for the Creation.”

Nelson stated that the motivation of the Intelligent Design movement is simply to restore Newton’s vision to the toolkit. If ID is true, why shouldn’t we consider it? The NAS rule of MN as the only way to do science limits our freedom to seek the truth in science and in life, generally. Nelson’s point is that there isn’t an inherent problem with the MN toolkit, except, that it is smaller than the ID toolkit, which includes everything in the MN toolkit, and adds more tools for the scientist to use. He said, “I’d rather have the bigger toolkit, wouldn’t you?”

Nelson makes a nice argument. During the Q&A at the end, he and I went back and forth on the premise implied in his title, namely that we shouldn’t accept MN. Partly because I am so sensitive to the ease with which god-of-the-gaps arguments can slip in to our theories when we are hunting for explanations, I feel obligated to examine claims of intelligence with a hypercritical eye. To me, as a Christian who has experienced God directly in my life, it is obvious to me that God is behind Creation. The only questions deal with how He accomplished things, not whether He did. However, I know a number of people who were everything from anti-Christian atheists to nonchalant agnostics who, through the marvel and wonder of Creation as revealed through their scientific endeavours, found themselves turning to God in faith. So I cannot dismiss the apologetic that science can offer. I also take issue with the must/only phraseology of the NAS, but I still see MN as a powerful and necessary primary toolkit for the scientist. I balk a bit at the apparent intensity of Nelson’s presentation of the material, though it probably takes that to effectively push back at the 150 years of entrenched opposition to anything beyond MN in science. The issue I guess I still struggle with from his talk is that the title implies we should reject MN, but he concludes that the MN toolkit is a subset of the ID toolkit, so it seems that the issue is really with PN and its adherents dictating that MN is “all there was, is or ever will be.”

So it seems it goes back to worldview more than methodology. I see both Christians and naturalists comingle these so badly it is no wonder that the discussions are heated and folks talk past each other. If you have read many posts here, you will recall my soap box on this issue several times. I expect that most naturalists have no problem comingling them, and probably genuinely feel they are part and parcel of each other.  It is imperative, therefore, that we as Christians separate them clearly in our minds and in our discussions, so that we can be consistent in our terms, and eventually win a hearing among the more open-minded naturalists, and prayerfully, generate a little more light than heat in the discourse.

The final breakout session I attended (and for which I served as a TA) was by William Dembski (Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary) on “Randomness by Design.” It was a fascinating talk by a trained mathematician on how the very randomness sometimes found in nature points to Design. One argument that stuck in my mind was that it is strikingly difficult to truly get a random number because patterns are endemic in the universe, but are often hard to recognize as patterns at first. We seem to deem anything we don’t recognize as random, only to later discover a rich pattern intrinsic in it. Take for example ‘junk DNA’—we didn’t see any purpose in it and assumed it had no meaning or use—oops, wrong again. Dembski offered a richer argument than I provided here, and truthfully, some of it went over my head the first time around. This is just what I can remember without notes three weeks later.

A final comment on the Vibrant Dance: Andy Crouch offers an excellent summary of the conference here.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: Communicating Theology/Science and Theology Issues

There were three panel discussions at the conference, one on Wednesday morning, and two on Thursday morning, of which this is the second. I was generally able to summarize each statement made by each speaker, and so will present these as summarizing transcripts. Each speaker will be identified by their initials, listed after their name below. The listing below comes as presented in the symposium program. My comments will be bracketed.

This panel was entitled, “Panel Discussion and Q&A with Speakers: The Vibrant Dance of Faith & Science:  Communicating to our Churches, Communicating to our Cultures – Theology/Science and Theology Issues,” and was moderated by Larry Coulter (Shepherd of the Hills Presbyterian Church). Panelists were Rob Norris (RN), John Walton (JW), Jack Collins (JC), Walter Kaiser (WK), Tremper Longman (TL) (Westmont College) and Hugh Ross (HR). {Ross Hastings fell ill, and left early, but was supposed to be on the panel.}

Start transcript summary.

LC—This is more of a theological rather than scientific panel; Let’s look at three areas of interest among congregations—1) Genesis 1-11 & miracles, 2) practical applications of science, and 3) sharing the faith with highly educated folks.  How do you make decisions about the boundary of science as a person of faith?

JC—Certain ethical things are universal.

RN—Two steps in making these decisions-1) inform yourself on the nature of the involved issues , but that’s hard in all the complexities of the field, so get help being informed from those in the field with and to whom you want to minister and/or dialogue; 2) in areas where there are concerns, it is partially due to a lack of policing (bioethics-end of life issues/beginning of life issues, etc.) so need constant dialog between parishioners and between practitioners. {& between both groups}

HR—What can we do in churches to get scientists and engineers to be more active in fulfilling the work of the church?

LC—How do you do it?

HR—Active recruiting of them to teach and be involved in life of church, which also helps lowers barriers.

JC—We had one medical researcher in our church declare that the theologians WILL NOT tell them {scientists} what to do and they will do the research they want to do, regardless of what the theologians think is appropriate.

LC—{New topic} How does science interact with the cross and empty tomb?

JW—We need to be able to separate different parts of issues; how to evaluate what claims Scripture is actually trying to make. While there can be some variation in the OT claims, the cross/resurrection is very clear about its claims.

TL—Genesis 1-11 is one of the most difficult sections to interpret, so we need to be solid on the things that are truly clear (i.e. God did it). Encourage dialog.

WK—The author’s intentionality has been a big issue for last 50 years, but we also need to just point to text and determine the truth intention; pastors need to be able to show, “Thus saith the Lord,” and give the parishioners real direction. The theological community is reluctant to engage in discussion on the science/faith debate. {It sounds like Kaiser is calling the clergy/seminary community to man up and take a stand in grace and truth.}

HR—How can we use these issues to bridge the science/faith gap to bring others to the cross?

RN—Scripture not about creation alone. Forgetting this can cause us to lose the perspective that Creation is the beginning of the story and Revelation is the end of story—the REAL story is of Redemption (of which Creation is the introduction). Isolating Genesis 1-11 cuts it off from the cross and creates division, and loses the Divine perspective. Exegesis needs to be informed by systematic theology. {Major on the majors and minor on the minors, maybe? Perhaps we will be more successful in evangelism to all types of folks if we don’t ourselves get wrapped around the axle with secondary issues.}

TL—They {exegesis and systematic theology} inform each other and it is a great reminder!

WK—Told the following joke:  A Sunday School teacher asked her class, “What climbs trees, eaths nuts and has a bushy tail?” The class was silent, and obviously puzzled for a long time. She kept encouraging the children to answer the question. Finally, one kid tentatively piped up. “I know the answer is supposed to be Jesus, but it sure sounds like a squirrel.” {I guess his point was that folks tend to think that as Christians, only certain perspectives are acceptable, even when common sense and common knowledge seem to disagree.}

TL—If things are differently clear, it raises challenging questions. {?}

HR—Shouldn’t we continue to seek out clarity?

TL—Yes, but we also need to be honest about what we do/don’t know.

WK—Even Peter said the same about Paul J; Jesus and Peter tend to have things to say about whatever is in the Scripture—God put everything in Scripture for a reason. Theologians need to be more risky/bold in directing interpretation of Scripture just like scientists are about science. {There it is again, “Man up!”}

LC—{New topic} How do we handle miracles?

JW—God is involved in everything. There is No secular/sacred separation, so ancient world didn’t have a class for miracles—they were signs and wonders—you can’t intervene in something you are already doing and they saw everything as being the activity of God. {GREAT point!! I think this disconnect occurred as we started trying to understand natural mechanisms as a separate and independent field from theology/philosophy, and forgot to reintegrate that framework back into a theological superstructure.}

RN—The nature of miracles fits into the doctrine of Providence, so doesn’t have a unique scientific designation.

JC—Disagrees with JW a little, in that miracles describe things a little out of the ordinary, but need to be careful about semantics.

HR—Not all miracles are transcendent, many are transformational—God takes the resources and laws of physics and manipulates them with His intelligence.

LC—{New topic} What is the origin of the soul/imago Dei?

HR—The Hebrew indicates to him that there is direct divine action in the creation of humanity.

JC—We need to settle some definitional issue. What do we mean by soul and image of God? How do we image God—through similar characteristics? As relational beings? By being His representatives? Why not all 3? The embodied soul is a representation of the image of God, so the body is not less important than the soul.

WK—A magazine in the 50’s had an article that said science has found the human soul in the brain. He thinks imago Dei is the ability to speak/communicate, to have dominion, to love, intelligence, the capacity for or awareness of holiness/righteousness, etc.

JW—Tying the physiological with the physical is fraught with difficulty. Should we not focus on imago Dei in terms of his purposes?

TL—{made a comment on a Hebrew interpretation by another panel member}

RN—Christ is the very image of God, so we are made by and for God and Christ is the embodiment of our destiny.

TL—We display the image Dei best in our resurrected bodies, so we don’t just look forward to heaven.

LC—{New topic} Youth directors are the primary purveyors of the faith and college ministries too. How do we equip these folks to deal with students who are dealing with learning the sciences?

JW—We try to give students answers, instead of models for thinking. This needs to change. We also give students the idea they must choose between science and faith, and so they choose science. So we need to tell them that it isn’t a choice they have to make. We need to push education to youth pastor conferences etc. about science/faith issues.

JC—Agrees. We need to recognize that redemption is a restoration of Creation. God is not embarrassed by our curiosity, so we need to encourage it. We also tend to leave out the enjoyment of God and his creativity as we enjoy and express ours.

RN—Gave 3 pictures of what he’s done in his church over 20 years:  1) he created a Sunday School curriculum from junior high through college—gospel, hermeneutics, sense of doctrine along with an age appropriate apologetic; 2) they teach teachers to develop the curriculum theologically; and 3)prepare high schoolers before they go to college, giving them a conference on applied apologetics to provide them with ability to defend the faith in different situations—teach them there is nothing that is true that is contradictory with the nature of Christ.

HR—We need to really upgrade the intellectual challenge of Sunday School materials for our children, not just tell them answers, but get them to discuss, debate, think through and equip them to engage their peers from early on.

End Transcript summary.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: Communicating Science and Science/Theology Issues

There were three panel discussions at the conference, one on Wednesday morning, and two on Thursday morning, of which this is the first. I was generally able to summarize each statement made by each speaker, and so will present these as summarizing transcripts. Each speaker will be identified by their initials, listed after their name below. The listing below comes as presented in the symposium program. My comments will be bracketed.

This panel was entitled, “Panel Discussion and Q&A with Speakers: The Vibrant Dance of Faith & Science:  Communicating to our Churches, Communicating to our Cultures –Science and Science/Theology Issues,” and was moderated by Andy Crouch (AC). Panelists were Deborah Haarsma  (DH), Rob Norris (RN), Dinesh D’Souza (DD), Darrel Falk (DF), Hugh Ross (HR), Stephen Meyer (SM) and Ross Hastings (RH). {I apologize for all of the D’s, H’s and R’s! ugh!}

Start transcript summary.

Missed AC’s intro—apparently a survey that only 2% of scientists are evangelical. “How can we raise it?”

DF—We can’t convey an opinion that biology is fundamentally flawed—this is a missional issue as opposed to a scientific one

HR—Take a different survey:  instead of looking for evangelicals in science, look for those who respect the Bible

AC—True—what can we do to redeem the term “evangelical?”

RN—Teach Christian students in Christian schools not to be afraid of science. They also need to recognize there is a diversity of approaches to science/faith. This will discourage the defensive mentality we see among those coming from Christian schools.

DH—“AMEN!”

SM—Christian colleges should look at teaching models with flexible schedules to allow for research. The Discovery Institute has a research fellow program and try to help faculty at Christian colleges buy out a teaching schedule to allow research. We also have summer research institutes. Christians in academia and clergy should pay attention to the rising generation of scholars and mentor/nurture them.

DF—I believe strongly in Christian colleges. In effect, he seems to disagree with SM on balancing mentorship with research—taking SM’s comment to mean replacing mentorship with research

SM—Corrects impression—there is a need for Christian PhD granting institutions, also, not in place of Christian undergraduate only institutions.

AC--How can this group {the panel} interact with what’s going on at Christian colleges?

DH—Likes the current system of Christian colleges, but also sees need for Christian students in secular institutions—pastors can encourage students to be Christian scholars anywhere.

AC—{New topic} Instructed panel to offer ways to stay relatively well informed on new frontiers in science (WITHOUT referring to their own websites/books!) {jab at RTB in particular, who tend to mention a topic in passing, then send folks to their materials for the details before going to the next topic and doing the same thing. I understand they have such a vast amount of material and they give very similar talks repeatedly and it saves time. I get that, but they make such references so often, it becomes annoying to hear over and over and…GREAT folks, though! I recommend their stuff. Seriously.}

DD—The challenge for Christians is to be bilingual in secular culture. We think culture is made from the ground up, but it is often from the top down, especially in science, so we need to influence the influencers. Also, we tend to go from science to nature, rather than the other way around at times. Finally, we need to have ‘interpretive modesty.’ {i.e.-we should not be dogmatic about our interpretation, either of Scripture or the book of nature. Being tentative draws people in to examine our claims to see if they are true, rather than beating them over the head with them.}

HR—In his churches, they focus on teaching not preaching and they deal with controversial issues, which draws in unbelievers. Agrees with DD on top down—we need to engage the top scientists.

RN—As a pastor, he meets with the scientists who do keep up with the developments and has them give him a précis on what is going on, but pitched at his level. He needs to understand the issues so he can encourage others to face them.

DH—See the ASA journal on current science and faith. {ASA: American Scientific Affiliation—an association of Christian scientists}

AC—{New topic} DH’s husband has an article at bit.ly/fourmyths that gives 4 myths about ID and 4 about theistic evolution. Why don’t’ these issues engage both the scientific community and the faith community?

DH—Astronomy is starting to improve in this area. Women aren’t interested in the interface because few women are in either/both clergy and science. Also, they don’t see hard science as relevant or able to help people. {Comment based on general idea that women tend to be primarily concerned with compassion issues as nurturers.}

DD—sees this as a non-issue—the big issue is why evangelicals in general are drastically underrepresented in all areas of elite society. He calls for a well thought out strategy to infiltrate and engage debates legally and politically, not affirmative action. He objects to science books including metaphysical statements.

AC—Science and the church are some of the most diverse in society, yet the interface between them seems to be most interesting to European males.

HR—Are we merely dealing with demographics—are women are committed to supporting it, but maybe as a support role rather than reading the journals themselves?

DF—Sees origins as more of a hobby area than area of priority.

DH—True—people more concerned about evangelism than apologetics.

HR—Apologetics is part of evangelism.

DD—Do we meet needs of body or engage culture?

SM—ID does attack the foundations of the atheist culture, which is the public face of the secular worldview. He disagrees with DF, and thinks that origins is more than a hobby and is critical. It is one among several priorities or areas of interest.

AC—{Next topic} We should have public engagement with the way science is done—science has limits—what it can and should do. Scientists often want/try to push those limits. How do we make the case for those limits effectively and be part of the public debate, regardless of whether others come to faith?

DH—Best arena for these discussions is the professional scientific societies, which limits what the church can do.

DD—There are two things we can do 1)articulate the hidden faith-based assumptions of modern science (uniformity of nature)and  2) scientists think faith is a bad word, so we have to establish the reasonableness of faith (differentiate between evidence based faith and blind faith).

DF—The church needs to realize that science is capable of being pretty certain about some things.

HR—We need to not shackle the research of theologians, philosophers and scientists so that we can talk with each other.

RN—It is not the church’s role to police the scientific society, but to proclaim the kingdom of God, and equip the scientific members to responsibly act in their communities.

AC—There are lots of questions (pre-submitted from the audience) about details that we didn’t get to (such as was Adam really 900 yrs old, best dating systems, etc)

End Transcript summary.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: A Vision for the Church

Wednesday’s evening sessions were fascinating, but I have no report for them. As part of my volunteer (pleasurable!) duties, I served as a teaching assistant (TA) for two of the four breakout sessions—basically, made sure the room was set up for the speakers’ needs and be available if they need anything. Thus, I missed Dinesh D’Souza’s testimony. {Ever notice how some folks are known by a single name—Elvis, Madonna? Dinesh D’Souza’s one of those who’s known by their first and last name.} The breakout session for which I served as a TA was “Scientific Challenges to Neo-Darwinism” by the Discovery Institute team:  Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, Richard Sternberg, and Doug Axe. It was basically 4 talks and Q&A in 90 minutes. Whew! Very fascinating, and I wish I could have taken notes, but I had a fair bit to do TA-wise. Sternberg’s talk is the one I remember best, about how the popular story of the evolution of whales is untenable. Very interesting—I’d love to hear a Darwinist’s response.

Thursday morning and the last day started with Deborah Haarsma’s testimony. I unfortunately missed this one too.

So we’ll proceed to the first plenary talk of the day by Alister McGrath from King’s College, London (which is different that The King’s College, in the Empire State Building, from where Bruce Gordon and Dinesh D’Souza hail), speaking on “A Vision for the Church: Science, Faith and Society in 2030 and How We Start on That Road Today.” Under Doctor’s orders, McGrath was unable to travel, so sent a video of his talk that he specially recorded for us, as opposed to recycling an earlier presentation.

He started with the question, “why is the relationship between Science and Religion so important? He then gave views by atheistic scientists. Steven Jay Gould said that science is religiously neutral, so science can’t point toward or away from faith. Yet, Stephen Hawking’s asserted that God is not needed based on string theory, which is hardly a religiously neutral statement.

Interestingly, string theory is highly speculative (and quickly falling out of favor in the scientific community), so he is speculating on a non-science issue based on a speculative theory based on no evidence. Given that the laws of physics are descriptive of a mechanism, we still need an Agent setting those laws in motion, so Hawking’s premise is flawed.

{Again, we see the agent/mechanism spectre rising yet again. Must be frustrating for those naturalists!}

So, from where do the “laws of physics” come? Hawking attributes agency to the laws themselves, which only pushes things back one step.

McGrath said that scientists are a bit worried about Hawking’s latest book because they fear it may erode the authority of science. They don’t want that authority (and power!) weakened in the public mind by the way he engages in such wild speculation.

Gould believed science cannot comment on God without overstepping its bounds. {Sounds like NOMA} Richard Dawkins has indicated that science is unable to say anything about what is ethical. {This is an astounding statement, given how much effort evolutionists have spent trying to explain an evolutionary mechanism for human ethics and morality.} McGrath references a book, “The Limits of Science” by Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar. {Incidentally, when you click on the Amazon link, take the time to read through some of the comments.}

Detective fiction is popular because people like to see how things fit together—weaving clues together. In the same way, we like to know the sense of things in science, faith, and their interface. So understanding how we approach each is important. The dominant paradigm in science is “inference to the best explanation,” or inferring from the data what explanation holds them together best. {Medawar disputes this paradigm in his book, claiming intuition and serendipity are  more important.} By contrast, faith goes beyond, even transcends, reason. {Which Medawar apparently would say that much of science is the same, with interesting philosophical implications.} Yet, McGrath argues that some people are trapped within reason, and unable to make the leap to faith. {Future blog post on this one!!}

Darwin himself said he didn’t’ have a problem with evolution versus faith, calling his theory provisional. It is important to note here the existence of two Darwinisms: 1) the scientific theory and 2) the worldview. Even Richard Dawkins says that Darwinism 1 may be changed so radically in another hundred years, we wouldn’t recognize it! {Do you, like me, find yourself getting Dawkins and Darwin confused? I suspect a linguistic conspiracy!)

Going back to faith, St. Augustine interprets Genesis, seeing within it two patterns in Creation—an instantaneous bringing about of things and a slower progression of development—‘embedded causalities’ which are revealed over time. {It’s sort of like puberty is embedded into our genes, but not revealed until the time for it to kick in.} He said, “the Creation is a seed that begins to grow over time.” This is in 401 AD—1400 years before Darwin! {This is also a nasty blow for the young earth folks—shows that ancient theologians didn’t even take Genesis 1 as six literal 24 hour days of Creation!} {This is actually a very insightful perspective by Augustine—life develops over time, culture develops over time, so why not Creation? Parallelism is an important hermeneutical technique.}

With theories in such flux, McGrath concludes, where will we be in a generation’s time—40 years from now?

There are two authorities in culture—science and faith, and without dialogue, they will continue to drift apart. Religion can offer an ethical construct for morally neutral science. Therefore, he encourages, pastors should learn the language of science so they can reach out to scientists and minister to them.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: Mobilizing Techie Christians

The last talk of the afternoon was by Dinesh D’Souza, author, political commentator, and President of King’s College, on “Mobilizing Technically Oriented Christ Followers to help the church witness with fearless, culture transforming integrity.” D’Souza is a dynamic speaker, and doesn’t pull any punches.

He launched into a discussion of how atheism has changed, asking, “what’s new about the new atheism?” The old atheism had a narrow agenda of policing the boundaries of church and state. The new atheism is more ambitious, seeking to demolish belief in God and make believers ashamed. They are more suave, debonair and academically distinguished. They have an active agenda and control the methods of influence in the world (science, media, education, politics).

They seek to put the Christians against the wall, being effective in challenging Christianity in secular terms. Belief in God is the very problem. They seek to drive a wedge between the head and the heart. Unfortunately, “Crayon Christianity,” the variety of faith he says is typically found in the U.S.,  is a basic, juvenile, faith that doesn’t work with skeptics.

D’Souza proceeded to list what he felt were the two or three strongest arguments by the new atheists, and then responded to them.

1)      Values:  they tout the virtues of individualism, dignity of women, autonomy of science, abolition of slavery, and compassion. D’Souza responded by asking, “But are these values found in other worldviews besides Christianity? Or are they even unique to the West? And the post-Christian West at that?” In fact, even Aristotle saw pity as a vice. {My notes are silent on anything he might have said on most of these values. That means either he said nothing or that it was stuff I was so familiar with I didn’t bother writing down. I’ll assume the latter.}

{The rights of the individual are an important development, but one developed largely through the effect of the Gospel. The Enlightenment just borrowed and expanded upon them, and, may I argue, took them to an unhealthy extreme, such that proper respect for authority, commitment to community and similar values are now faded and often ridiculed. Christ did more for women’s rights than any other religious leader in history, and the current level of egalitarianism in gender equity was largely bought by the efforts of Christian women 100 years ago. Christians have always taken the lead in abolishing slavery. It was abolished for the first time in the Christian West, and has spread at the insistence of the West.}

D’Souza argued that we need a pro-science apologetic because the new atheism has a rehearsed narrative. It sees history as the progression from ignorant ancient man to an enlightened new man, therefore, “Christianity is a bad explanation—medieval Christians thought the world was flat, center of the universe, and God created each creature individually in its time; science has proved all of these wrong.” We need to disabuse this narrative. Their lie was invented in the 19^th century and has not been successfully fought for a while. It turns out modern discoveries post-1859 actually support faith, not the other way around as the atheists would have you believe. (I.e. the universe and time have beginnings, etc.)

2)      Christianity and Morality—They say that belief in God and morality is responsible for death, wars, and evil. So religion is a lie and socially damaging. This has a molecule of truth and that is all. The grain of truth according to D’Souza is that Islamic radicals do do what they do in the name of God, but they are the only ones. So people try to create a specious equation between them and us.

Let’s look at history. The Inquisition lasted 350 years, resulting in about 2000 deaths. The Salem witch trials were a couple of years long and resulted in about 19 deaths. {9/11 resulted in about 3000 deaths in a single day. Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, Hitler, Mao and so on…well over 10 MILLION in less than 60 years (conservative numbers). If you want to talk body count, be my guest.} In other Christian-Christian wars, folks were not fighting over God, but land, self determination, and so on—still not great, but God isn’t to blame.

What drives the new atheists? They say they are champions of reason, disciples of data and the “data for God just is not there.” Here is the problem—If you don’t believe something for which there is no evidence, the average person ignores it—unicorns, for example. But the new atheists are obsessed with God, angry with God, and have a real Angus beef with Him. They seem to give God more attention than far too many folks warming pews on Sunday morning. That is a lot of effort spent on a fantasy. {Maybe I can write a bunch of books and make a fortune adamantly insisting leprechauns don’t exist.}

What fuels this obsession? If you abolish God, you remove yourself from the shadow of judgment, giving you control over life—the promise of moral freedom. In short, they want to be the moral authority of their lives, and if possible, be the ones to impose their moral view on others. In short, they want to be God. {Sounds like the Tower of Babel all over again….}

What’s our position/response? We have come through 30 years of experiential Jesus evangelism. (“What God has done in my life.”) But now, we need to combine it with evidence, data and knowledge.

We need to send out an “A team” against their A team, not to churches, youth groups, Christian colleges, but to USA Today and the rest of their turf. {We need to go on the offensive, but without being offensive.} Problem:  we don’t have a TEAM—we have individuals. We need to build a team.

SDG