To Make a Difference

Every semester, I meet individually with each of my students to discuss their plans and dreams for the future, and offer some personalized career counseling.

With many, I ask them a pair of questions to try to get below the surface, and for many, it is very difficult to answer them, even for those that have thought about them before.

1)      What are you good at? What are your gifts, strengths, talents, or skills? What do your friends admire about you?

2)      What are you passionate about? What energizes, motivates, or inspires you? What makes you exult or rage?

For many, if not most, the most common passion expressed is to make a difference in the world or to help people.

It is striking to me that this should be such a common refrain, as it seems independent of any spiritual tradition or other recognizable single factor. However, there are some interesting things I have either noticed or inferred from the sum of their comments.

Ten Things About Science and Religion that Might Surprise You

Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder brings a unique combination of expertise’s to the science and faith realm:  an understanding of ancient Hebrew and an understanding of quantum mechanics. That’s quite enough for two brains, but he’s got it in one.

While I don’t agree with him on all points, he does give me a lot to think about, and much of what he says is at the very least reasonable, if not revolutionarily and likely correct. On his website he has two articles you will find quite thought provoking. Check them out. (Note: you might notice that 5 + 5 = 9 in this case as one item appears on both lists like two sides of the same coin.)

Top Five Religious Myths Popularly Accepted as Fact

Top Five Scientific Myths Popularly Accepted as Fact

(Thanks to Sarah Salviander at SixDayScience for the links!)

SDG

Religion in Politics

I suppose it is a strange idea, but tonight’s post is a review of a review. A colleague, Dr. Robert Jensen, recently wrote a review, “Prophetic politics: Charting a healthy role for religion in public life,” which is a review of Walter Brueggemann, The Practice of Prophetic Imagination: Preaching an Emancipatory Word (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). My comments will make a lot more sense if you can take the time to read Bob’s article.

The first thing that surprised me was the extent to which Bob and I actually agreed. He and I come from very different political perspectives, and somewhat different views of Christianity, and have had a rough patch or two, largely due to my mouth more than his, I’m ashamed to say. His graciousness went a long way towards smoothing things out. So this convergence was a very pleasant surprise.

I thought one critical point that was missed, possibly also by Brueggemann, is that polemics often trumps the "first principles" that one's faith might otherwise inform a voter. I'll offer two examples, one each from traditional liberal and conservative platforms.

Atheistic Sectarianism and Problems with Religion Developing Evolutionarily

Several weeks ago, I wrote a blog about the TED talk by Alain de Botton on Atheism 2.0. I have an update that almost sounds like it’s ripped from the front page of The Onion, but is a serious article from the LA Times. In “Atheist writers clash over how to not worship a nonexistent God,” de Botton and Dawkins criticize each other on how to practice their atheism.

De Botton is raising $1.5 million to build a temple to atheism, where folks can contemplate 300 million years of life’s existence on Earth and think good thoughts. Dawkins argues it is rubbish and the money should go to funding nicely atheistic schools.

At first glance, it is crazy, and one is likely to side with Dawkins on this one.

Atheism 2.0

There seems to be a new kid on the atheism block. First we had the Enlightenment atheists, then the Darwinian atheists, and the Communist atheists. Most recently, we saw the rise of the aptly named “New Atheists.” Until now.

Alain de Botton has presented “Atheism 2.0,” which now rightfully claims the title of the “Newest Atheists.” It seems, at least in terms of this list, that he has misnamed his programme, which should be “Atheism 5.0.” But that is the advantage of his naming scheme—he can version the previous incarnations any way he chooses, so the Communist atheists might be more properly dubbed “Atheism 1.9.17, build Oktobre” or somesuch.

This also reveals the embarrassing scenario Dawkins is facing when his New Atheism becomes the “Old Atheism,” or the “Newly Chronologically-Disadvantaged Atheism.” I’m sure Mr. Hitchens, were he still present, would have a sagely satirical witticism over his newfound obsolescence.

Sawing Off the Branch You're Sitting On

It is no secret that many, if not most of the movers and shakers in the Academy would just as soon Christianity disappeared into the night, and the more quietly the better. Many of them attribute the growing ills of society to the poisonous influence of Christianity and other religions. Just ask Richard Dawkins and his fellow monks of the “New Atheism.”

I have just one question:  the prominence of Christianity in the fabric of society has been sharply decreasing for much of the last fifty or sixty years, so why are our problems increasing? It seems like we should be darn near a utopia now.

The Things We Can't Talk About

“For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”

I Corinthians 13:12

Have you ever thought about how, even though we live in a free country, there are many things that we just can’t talk about?

I’m not just talking about “religion and politics” or politically correct speech, though those are certainly a large part of it. There are many things that we cannot or should not reveal about ourselves or discuss with others.

Some health ailments, we are taught, have taboos associated with them, so don’t discuss them, even if you are concerned about the health of someone who obviously has one. Are you considering looking for a new job? Better keep quiet or be very careful. Family history should be “kept in the family.” Trade secrets are just that, secret. And so on.

HWJV: How Would Jesus Vote?

At grave risk of breaking my rule to be apartisan in this blog, I feel compelled to comment on the issue of Christians in politics.

Growing up in Texas, at least post-Reagan, it has been commonly viewed among evangelicals here that you can’t be a Christian and Democrat or a Christian and politically liberal. I had a roommate in grad school who grew up in Pennsylvania believing you couldn’t be a Christian and a Republican. Obviously, what we have here is the heart of Christian unity.

Religion versus Christ

Today in Sunday School, we looked at the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan. The thing that stood out to me as a good reminder was that the two folks who passed the wounded man represented the religious establishment.

One of the struggles we face in the academy is that our colleagues, students and even, sadly, other believers fail to distinguish between the trappings of religion (‘organized’ or otherwise) and the radical life and gift of our Lord.

Our faith is meant to be a way of life, lived both individually and corporately, not some impersonal institution—an organism, not an organization.

SDG

Bric-a-brac

Baby, it’s COLD outside! We haven’t been above freezing for over 24 hours, and won’t likely for another 36! This reminds me of my time in Ann Arbor. I’ll admit, I’m sort of enjoying it. There’s even an inch of snow forecast for overnight Thursday—makes me glad I don’t have classes on Friday and can stay home in front of the fireplace! (Though my laptop will also keep me close company—lots of work to do for my classes.)

It is simply amazing to me just how fine tuned the Earth’s orbit is—that just by shifting our relative distance from the sun by a few hundred miles, our temperature shifts from sweltering to freezing and back. I’m sure some geologist or astronomer can tell me exactly how far Texas moves away from the sun between summer and winter, and I’m sure I can even calculate it myself if I bothered to look up the 2-3 pieces of data I’d need, but I can promise you—it ain’t much, and that is incredible. I’m not saying it couldn’t have happened naturally, it could have—if Earth exists, it has to exist somewhere, so why not here—but this is just one of the dozens of ‘just exactly rights’ science has realized about our universe. How many before we give in and say the raw probability of God is higher than the raw probability of random dumb luck?

Recently, I posted about “The Case for Christianity” webcast. They have a new video online. Check it out and tell your pastor!

Also, recently, I wrote about Christian and Muslim Views on Science and Religion. An astronomy colleague wrote me with the following in response:

“One thought occurred when I read Safak's comment that Muslims stopped watching the sky. I'm reading a book about the history of astronomy written by Michael Hoskin that touches on this. Hoskin comments that Islamic astronomy, like that of most cultures up to that time, was primarily concerned with facilitating astrological predictions. Astrology was very popular, but Islamic religious authorities frowned on it, so much so that astrologers/astronomers and their patrons were sometimes killed. That might have discouraged sky-watching. Moreover, from other sources I have read, it appears the decline in science occurred ca. the 11th/12th century when Islam became quite orthodox and the Greek wisdom that Muslims had previously treasured were deemed corruptive to faith.”

Stay warm in the hope of Christ!

SDG

Christian and Muslim Views on Science and Religion

Tonight, the same group sponsoring last night’s talk sponsored a talk on science and religion. They had a Christian Religious Studies professor from the University of Houston, Dr. Lynn E. Mitchell, and a Turkish Imam from San Antonio, Zubeyir Safak.

                        

Mitchell went first and then Safak. There followed a Q&A with only a couple of questions, most of which were fielded by Mitchell.  Nearly everything discussed has been pretty thoroughly covered in previous posts, particularly the “What is Science?” series a couple of weeks ago, and a few Vibrant Dance topics from last fall.

Mitchell is a clear NOMA supporter, a fact he confirmed to me explicitly afterward, though he seemed to respect the Concordist view I tend to hold, and is appreciative of the work of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. He correctly and at length explained that in spite of much belief to the contrary, there hasn’t really been a war between science and religion, again as covered in the highlighted post earlier in this paragraph. He also echoed Ross by describing how Genesis is unique among creation accounts in that God created, rather than creation creating some pantheon, like the Babylonian {and Greek} mythologies do.

I found Safak a pleasant, likable, soft-spoken gentleman, and very thoughtful. He holds a concordant viewpoint that the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture, when properly interpreted are in complete agreement/harmony. The key difference is that his Book of Scripture is the Qu’ran, not the Bible. I would enjoy sitting down with him over lunch or dinner and discussing theology, philosophy and/or science. One of the more interesting things he touched on was why the Muslim nations, which had an advanced scientific/technological understanding for centuries, stagnated. He stated simply that they stopped watching the sky.

As has been recently popularized by the DVD “The Star of Bethlehem,” The magi were likely Babylonian scholars descended from the school of scholars of which the Old Testament prophet, Daniel, was chief. One of the primary things this school of scholars did was astronomy.

Why did they stop watching the sky? I’m not sure, but I interpreted Safak’s statement as being both literal and figurative, in that for some reason, scholarly pursuits were simply not valued. There is a rather unflattering legend that in A.D. 640 when the Muslims conquered Egypt, they sent word back to the Caliph Omar asking what to do about the documents in the Library of Alexandria. He is reported to have replied, "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." And thus they were burned. This legend, recorded 300 years or so after the event by a strongly anti-Muslim bishop, must be taken with a rather large grain of salt. Furthermore, it is sad to admit that a few of our brothers and sisters in Christ would agree with the Caliph, viewing any book other than the Bible as being unnecessary.

Before going to the lecture, I had mentioned it to some of my staff, and one commented that he expected that the Islamic view of science and religion would likely be comparable to the other monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity, and he was right. On the one hand that makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, there has been such a long historical divide in the cultures of Western Judeo-Christianity and Islam, and corresponding difference in scientific development, that I wasn’t sure what to expect. What I found was there is a range of view that is very similar to the range among us.

Still the biggest surprise for me was the similarity. I have read precious little of an English translation of the Qu’ran (which must be read in Arabic to insure you’ve gotten the message correctly, I’ve been told), and have heard a fair bit of hearsay regarding the content of it. That small level of exposure has not left me with an expectation that Concordism between the Qu’ran and science would be feasible or significant. That an imam sees it as such is interesting.

During the Q&A, I was the first to raise my hand, and thanked them for coming, saying that as a scientist of faith, it was encouraging to hear theologians speak on the subject in similar terms to my own views, and got the chance to offer up this blog to demonstrate it. (Never pass up an opportunity for free advertising!) The unexpected result of that comment was to draw enough attention to myself, that afterward, three students accosted me with digital voice recorders, saying they were in a journalism class and wanted to interview me for an assignment. Sigh. (What was that about free advertising?) Fortunately, they said it would not appear in the student paper, as I’m not sure I’m ready for that kind of publicity.

Admin note: it appears I have fixed whatever setting was causing the email subscriptions not to go out daily, and I think I have linked the blog to Twitter. Supposedly, when I post, it will send a tweet out to @ScholRed. It didn’t work last night, but maybe it is fixed now???? Stay tuned or tweeted or friended or…

SDG

Gaskell vs. University of Kentucky

The other day, news broke about what will likely be a landmark case on academic freedom and religious discrimination in hiring university faculty. Dr. Martin Gaskell, a noted astronomer and an evangelical Christian, was the leading candidate for a position directing a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky, one for which he was uniquely qualified by his past experience…until one of the search committee found an essay online where Dr. Gaskell discusses science and the Bible. At that point, the information was passed around the committee and the department, with a flurry of emails. Dr. Gaskell then was passed over for the job and it was given to someone with vastly less experience.

It is critical that we as Christian faculty are aware of such cases, that we pray for them and that we are on watch for similar situations in our own universities so we can remind folks that this is illegal discrimination. I will keep the blog up to date on the progress of the case. For more information on the specifics, please follow these links:

The decision to hear the case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44586388/Gaskell-v-Univ-of-Ky-11-10

The press release by Gaskell’s legal team:

http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?ID=1031

The offending online essay:

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html

Please remember Dr. Gaskell and his family (and his legal team!) in your prayers.

SDG

Christian Faculty: Members of a Dual Priesthood—Challenges & Opportunities, Part 2

{This is the second of a two-part post, adapted from a topical Bible Study I led at the UT faculty group.}

Yesterday’s post suggested that as Christian faculty we are priests of two orders—the priesthood of believers and an academic order, and these can come into conflict.

So, how do we handle it when the academic order makes demands inconsistent with our faith? Let’s first see how Daniel handled it (Daniel 1:11-20, Daniel 3, 6). He sought ways to negotiate with the secular authority to make allowances for his faith, because he understood the critical pinch points between his roles and creatively looked for ways to resolve them. There are several principles we can apply in our situations.

The first is to take advantage of the principles of academic freedom. This is a bit tricky, because the academy has fallen into a bit of hypocrisy in this area, but if you can carefully navigate the politics of things, you can win a certain amount of freedom with a minimum of stubbed toes.

Secondly, don’t be a firebrand simply for the sake of being bold. In short, do not seek controversy or conflict. (“Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.” I Thess 4:11-12) If controversy/conflict finds you anyway, fine.

Third, be wise. (“Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.” Eph 5:15-16) It’s fine to stand up for your faith and pursue your passion, but make sure your colleagues know you first for excellent scholarship, and it helps to get tenure before making too many waves. It’s only six years, and you then have 20-40 to blaze.

Fourth, work with excellence. (“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.” Col 3:22-25)

The final one I will mention is trust God to know and guide your heart, and do not spend your energy wondering too much about if you are worshipping knowledge more than God. You have His Spirit in you, and keeping your devotional life active will help. In 2 King 5, we read of the Aramean general with leprosy, Naaman. After he is healed, he says, “’But may the LORD forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this.’ ‘Go in peace,’ Elisha said.”

Just like Naaman, God has placed us in positions of influence, and He is not ignorant of the conflicts that creates and His grace washes over us, “lubricating” the points of friction.

Given these challenges, what opportunities do we have as dual priests? I have come up with six:

To put it bluntly, we are in positions of influence in our culture, so let’s influence! (“Do you see a man skilled in his work?  He will serve before kings; he will not serve before obscure men.” Proverbs 22:29)

We have the opportunity to demonstrate excellence without the idolatry that many of our colleagues unwittingly pursue.

This contrast gives us the chance to show that knowledge and scholarship are means to an end and not an end unto themselves—our studies point to higher knowledge, wisdom and understanding—to the source of all knowledge and wisdom, God Himself.

In doing this, we should then be able to demonstrate a joy in our lives and scholarship that will reveal the fruitlessness of “academism,” my name for the false religion in the ivory tower that includes the various incarnations of naturalism, humanism or whatever ‘ism’ is prevalent in your department.  (“…We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. I Cor 8:1-2 (admittedly out of context))

Fifth, Christ’s Great Commission in Matthew 28 instructs us in the Greek that as we go, we are to make disciples. It is our spheres of influence that are our mission field and source of disciples. Therefore, we have the opportunity and responsibility to mentor those in the lower ranks (undergrads, grads, junior faculty).

 Finally, and perhaps most excitingly, we are being paid to explore God’s creation as a vocation! What more could you ask for?

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