Chris Rowan is a geologist specialising in the dark arts of paleomagnetism, and getting people to pay him to travel to exotic destinations for fieldwork. Having drilled up New Zealand during his PhD, and South Africa in his first post-doc, he now works at the University of Edinburgh.
Anne Jefferson has a love of all things water-related and blends hydrology, geomorphology, geology, and climate change in her work. She has a Ph.D. from Oregon State University and is now an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.Over at Galactic Interactions, Rob Knop has managed to kick off yet another "robust exchange of views" by talking a bit about his beliefs as a Christian and a scientist. By doing so, Rob has of course been taking a fair amount of flak from those who believe that those two words have no right appearing in the same sentence without a ≠ sign inserted between them. I want to say nothing about that at the moment beyond, "what John said", but I've also noted another, somewhat more disturbing, theme in the comments, for example this one:
You say that you don't have to throw out your faith to believe in science. But, at least in your case, you most certainly have thrown out your faith. You describe a mix of absolutism and relativism that I find quite confusing (how does it differ from 'live and let live', really?), but in any case it bears no resemblence to Christianity.
Or this one:
You did redefine both God and Christian right to the line of irrecognizability. I was a hardcore catholic, and I would never have considered you a christian. .
and, over at his blog, Jason expresses a similar sentiment:
One wonders, however, what it means to describe yourself as a Christian and then write a paragraph like the one above .
This strikes me as a rather silly, and also rather insulting, criticism. The key lies in the second comment: in a depressingly large number of cases, if you ask a Catholic whether a Protestant or a Mormon was a Christian, they would answer no. And multiply vice versa. Hell, at the moment large chunks of the Anglican Church are accusing other parts of not being True Christians; and, to a first approximation at least, Rob's beliefs seem to be resemble Ken Miller's, so we have a professed Catholic who would also fall foul of a 'hardcore Catholic'. So even within the same denomination there's obviously a fair amount of variability in what people feel defines 'Christian'.
The point is, 'Christianity' is not a discrete trait like black hair or six toes or an addiction to coffee. Christians self-identify. All religious people do. Even if Rob is in a Church of one (almost certainly not the case, I suspect) he clearly has a right to call himself a Christian, and state a belief in God, without being told that he doesn't know his own mind.* As most of us have probably been burned ourselves by non-scientists telling scientists that science is 'unethical, godless materialism' (or 'a social construct of white patriarchs'), and non-biologists telling biologists that evolution is 'random unethical, godless materialism', we should well know the dangers of trying to define other peoples' terms for them.
Personally, as someone who has long been interested in trying to understand what people believe and why, I'm hoping that Rob will continue to talk about the relationship between science and his faith; I'm sure I won't be the only person who learns something if he does.
*as distinct from discussing how his Christian beliefs differ from other peoples'. There is a difference.
Comments
What Chris said.
Posted by: John Wilkins | March 15, 2007 6:29 AM
I would definitely make a distinction between the rather vague religious beliefs of Rob (at least his description was vague) and the clear beliefs of Kenneth Miller. Miller is a fantastic scientist when speaking on the evolution issue. On the other hand he has said that as a practicing Roman Catholic he truly believes in physical rather than metaphorical transubstantiation during mass. In other words he believes that wine and bread PHYSICALLY turn into the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. And that is just one example.
Now I have no problem with religious metaphors as a means to view the world on a poetic or non literal level but religious dogma that clashes with scientifically measurable physical objects or processes, that is another thing entirely.
Remember everyone, these are 'scienceblogs', not 'faithblogs', don't be surprised or annoyed (eh Rob ?) if someone says "show me the evidence".
Posted by: MartinC | March 15, 2007 7:06 AM
Fair enough. Without trying to put words in Rob's mouth, I'm sure that in return you won't get all huffy if the believer in question says, "Nope ... simply not interested."
In my experience, believers often just aren't interested in presenting or debating "scientific evidence" for their beliefs. And I include one working scientist who's a friend in this category.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | March 15, 2007 7:38 AM
Well, they aren't 'basketballblogs" or "dothisilly surveyblogs' either ... :-)
Posted by: Scott Belyea | March 15, 2007 7:42 AM
When I heard someone say that Rob had 'failed to defend his views' I knew there were people who were taking Rob's religion posts the wrong way.
With people of good faith, the wrangling over definition would be part of the learning process. If you are dealing with people who are trying to defend themselves against your views, then it's definitely not beneficial.
Posted by: John B | March 15, 2007 8:37 AM
Creationists frequently self-identifies as doing good science. Fox News self-identifies as fair and balanced. George Bush self-identifies as a compassionate conservative. PZ Myers self-identifies as being reasonable and not at all frothing on the topic of religion. On your account, which - if any - of these characterizations are we allowed to contest?
Posted by: D | March 15, 2007 8:48 AM
John B:
I had a similar thought. I'm not sure that he was really trying to "defend" anything. And while it would be fair to say, "I did not find his further arguments to be convincing," to simply state that he "failed to defend his views" is just condescending and not useful.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | March 15, 2007 8:51 AM
Re-definition is a standard part of the apologetics game, and it does not surprise me that Mr. Knop would redefine "God" and "Christian" to suit his needs. What does surprise and disappoint me is that he redefined "existence" by saying that an entity could exist for some people but not for others. Really, there are limits on linguistic relativism.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 15, 2007 9:08 AM
The key lies in the second comment: in a depressingly large number of cases, if you ask a Catholic whether a Protestant or a Mormon was a Christian, they would answer no.
I think the underlying problem here is expressed in this very sentence: religion is a shitload of nothing. You have two billion people in the world claiming their varied, mutually contradictory and yet equally ridiculous beliefs are all Christianity. Is there anything out there of enough cognitive value to critique?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 15, 2007 9:24 AM
Let's add another to the long list of informal fallacies so often bandied about in these regions -- and let's call this one the "no true christian fallacy."
Look in the mirror, people.
Posted by: bob koepp | March 15, 2007 9:26 AM
It is ironic that one of the most fundamentalist and dogmatic sects these days is the Southern Baptist. It's ironic because the term "priesthood of the believer" originated with them. If that is not self explanatory, it meant that every believer was free to interpret his belief himself; there was no centralized bureau of true belief.
Posted by: Mark | March 15, 2007 9:29 AM
On your account, which - if any - of these characterizations are we allowed to contest?
I'd rather people talked about ideas rather than labels (and you'd be hard pressed to find much agreement on the fundamental characteristics of all but the first of your examples). My beef is with people who in response to Rob saying "I'm a Christian, and I believe in x", seemed to think that 'if you believe in x , you're no Christian," was a useful addition to the conversation.
Posted by: Chris Rowan | March 15, 2007 9:54 AM
Ah, the foundation for a productive discussion! Always intellectually satisfying to witness an "argument" built on such a solid combination of arrogance and ignorance ...
Posted by: Scott Belyea | March 15, 2007 10:01 AM
So, to clarify, are you saying it is generically impossible for anyone to be wrong in making claims of the form "I believe in statements {y1, y2...} so I am a Y", or are you saying rather that the specific claims Rob makes are quite consistent with many forms of Christianity?
I think the first option is simply untenable. The truth of the second is of course an empirical question, but I find it implausible that there is much Christianity out there that's consistent with statements like:
- there is no creator god,
- religion has no special access to moral truth,
- religion shouldn't make claims about the natural world
- all religious traditions converge upon the same spiritual truths
- if people stopped believing in God it'd stop existing
- people believe for comfort and sustenance
Posted by: D | March 15, 2007 10:54 AM
Clearly we can't take away someone's ability to self-identify, but it ceased to be about self-identification the moment that he wrote a blog post about how he was a Christian. If he expected anyone to read it and find it meaningful, and have a worthwhile discussion of it, then it's absolutely necessary he use words properly. This invites the question to be raised, is he a Christian? We can play sematic games all we want but what a waste of time. Rob got his ass handed to him and he must have known it was going to happen.
Posted by: jeffk | March 15, 2007 11:32 AM
No, I am saying that when some people who say that they believe statements {y1,y2} say that they are Y, and there are others who say they believe statements {y2, y3} and say that they are Y, and still others say that they believe in {y1, y4} and say that they are Y, it is a bit pointless to start lecturing people who say that they believe in {y2, y5} and say that they are Y.
Posted by: Chris Rowan | March 15, 2007 11:36 AM
I'm going to try a comparison which I freely admit is inexact, but which I (at least) find to be instructive. It seems to me that it sheds just a bit of light on the pointlessness of a lot of the "scientific" thrashing of "religion" or "spirituality."
I could say to you (and in fact, I would) that Bach is one of the 2 or 3 greatest composers in the history of western music, and that his works provide more artistic/aesthetic value than all the music created anywhere in any genre (classical or otherwise) for the last 50 years.
You might respond, "Demonstrate that! Where's the evidence?" Or you might say, "Well, what do you mean by 'value'? If you can't define that, then you haven't got anything."
I might present various sorts of evidence that meant something to me - more interest in his music now than ever ... recordings/performances at a higher level than ever ... clear evidence that his music touches something in many people ... and so on. You might dismiss all of that, and say, "Come on! I mean 'evidence'!"
Much of this would come down, however, to my personal experience vs. yours, and I suggest that there might be a gap there that would effectively preclude very much meaningful dialogue. It would leave lots of room for personal invective and insult, mind you. :-)
Much of the recent religion/science discussion on various blogs strikes me as somewhat similar.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | March 15, 2007 12:00 PM
An excellent response to the courtier's who wants to discuss the rarefied gods of theology.
Actually, I think the responders where trying to recognize the cognitive values in Rob's posts. It was supposed to be an argument, after all.
Re 'failed to defend his views' perhaps it is a reaction to Rob's seemingly default defensiveness. I got the feeling he didn't note that scienceblogs and their commenters have all sorts of views, as it should be.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 15, 2007 1:07 PM
Chris-
In his blog posts Rob has been explicitly denying certain points that are usually considered central to Christian faith. For example, he does not see God's role as creator as especially important. The credal statements of most Christian denominations, by contrast, put the idea of a creator God front and center.
Given that, I see nothing insulting in asking what he has in mind in describing himself as a Christian.
Your answer seems to suggest that I challenged his right to describe himself in whatever way he chooses. I did no such thing, of course. He can describe himself as a three-legged giraffe for all I care. But words are not infinitely malleable. Most people use the word Christian in way that is different from the way Rob is using it. If you do not believe that, I urge you to spend some time living in Kansas, Virginia or Idaho, as I have. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Rob to clarify his views.
Posted by: Jason Rosenhouse | March 15, 2007 1:47 PM
Weak point. There's a big wide world out there beyond Kansas, Virginia, and Idaho. Rumour has it that there's even civilization to be found outside the USA. This is the same pitfall that Myers and others don't seem to be able to avoid ...
Posted by: Scott Belyea | March 15, 2007 2:10 PM
Scott-
Oh please. Are you seriously arguing that Rob's use of the term Christian is the common one anywhere in the world? If it is, then an awful lot of Christians are using the term differently from the way it is used by the churches they claim to be members of.
Posted by: Jason Rosenhouse | March 15, 2007 3:20 PM
Come, come now ... please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't address that point at all. I was commenting on the weakness of your argument in holding up 3 states which are hardly representative of worldwide Christianity as support for your argument.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | March 15, 2007 4:29 PM
Scott-
Yes, I realize that was your point. My point was that the remark about Virginia, Idaho and Kansas was not meant to prove that Rob's views are not mainstream Christianity. I regard that point as too obvious to require proof. I simply mentioned those regions of the US in an attempt to get this discussion on to a more concrete footing.
The bigger issue is that Chris accused me of doing something insulting by asking Rob to clarify what he meant in describing himself as Christian. My reply is that Rob is using the term in an unusual way, and therefore it is reasonable to ask what he meant by it. I felt you were picking nits rather than addressing the issue. Hence my peevishness.
Posted by: Jason Rosenhouse | March 15, 2007 5:04 PM
It is unusual, in a sense. That makes it worth reading, in my opinion.
I have a friend who's a Buddhist nun, one of the community roles she plays involves funerary rites. One of the rituals she performs involves examining the body to determine what energy center the soul left from, in order to inform the family about that soul's probable next life conditions. Anyone who's read a textbook account of Buddhism knows that they reject the idea of 'soul', but not our local Pure Land Vietnamese community. I'm not comfortable with the idea that these people aren't Buddhists.
I just find the discrepancies interesting. Sometimes our definitions of things are wrong, over-simplified, or too reductionist, too essentialist to fit well with the lived reality of things.
Posted by: John B | March 15, 2007 6:44 PM
MartinC,
On the other hand he has said that as a practicing Roman Catholic he truly believes in physical rather than metaphorical transubstantiation during mass. In other words he believes that wine and bread PHYSICALLY turn into the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ.
Did Ken Miller actually say that? "Physically" turns? My admittedly aged recollection of transubstantiation is that, in medieval-speak, the 'accidents' of the bread and wine remain the same, while the 'substance' becomes the body and blood. Meaning, yeah it still looks, smells and tastes like bread and wine, but it has been transformed.
Posted by: John Farrell | March 15, 2007 8:47 PM
Jason Rosenhouse: "Are you seriously arguing that Rob's use of the term Christian is the common one anywhere in the world? If it is, then an awful lot of Christians are using the term differently from the way it is used by the churches they claim to be members of."
Thomas Jefferson claimed to be Christian. So do J.D. Crossan and Marcus Borg. Given the thorough heterodoxy of their views, one may wonder why they have done this, but they have. On the Ship-of-Fools forums, one can see a similar phenomenon. The term "Christian" may not be infinitely malleable, but it is more plastic than you think.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 15, 2007 9:49 PM
J.J. Ramsey-
The fact that the views of the people you mention are considered heterodox just proves my point. At some point the right to self-identify has to give way to the reality that words have meanings.
The issue here isn't whether you can find people who considered themselves to be Christians who nonetheless held views different from the mainstream of the religion. Rather, the issue is whether Rob Knop was using the word Christian in a way that is different from what most people mean by that term. Keep in mind that Chris accused me of doing something insulting in my reply to Rob's post. I maintain that I asked a perfectly reasonable question based on what Rob had written.
Posted by: Jason Rosenhouse | March 15, 2007 10:06 PM
Ah, but perfectly reasonable questions whose answers highlight embarassing errors or weaknesses on the part of the person questioned are considered to be rude in our tolerant and standardless society.
Didn't you get the memo?
Posted by: Caledonian | March 15, 2007 11:30 PM
A better question would be "Who are they to define Christianity as they see fit?"
A much better question would be "Who are you to criticize our application of standards by saying other people can apply whatever standards they wish?"
I'm detecting a bit of a double standard here.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 15, 2007 11:31 PM
"that he "failed to defend his views" is just condescending and not useful."
I did not read this. I read people asking him to define his views better as they were unclear to some people. Also he was asked to explain his words and sentances, such as knowedge other than scientific knowledge and this he never did. Others came up with Justice, but I shot that down.
Posted by: Kevin | March 16, 2007 1:45 AM
When I read Rob's piece, one of my first thoughts was to ask him if he'd applied to become Bishop of Durham.
Perhaps too obscure?
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | March 16, 2007 2:16 AM
Bob - exactly. Maybe growing up in the background of the Anglican church in the UK gives me a slightly different view of things. There, Rob's views would not be considered so amazingly heterodox (Christ as Redeemer is generally emphasised).
Jason - if you feel I was unfair, I apologise - I just felt that that throwaway comment right at the beginning took away from an otherwise interesting commentary.
Everyone - can't you see the difference between 'most people see that belief as an essential component of their Christian faith. Why don't you?' and 'If you believe that, you're not a Christian?'.
Posted by: Chris Rowan | March 16, 2007 2:30 AM
Actually Chris, it's not "if you believe that", it's "if you don't believe that".
That's why your Y-examples fail. In this case it would be something like someone saying I believe in {!y1, !y2, !y3, !y4, !y5} so I am Y (where '!' indicates 'not').
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | March 16, 2007 8:43 AM
John Farrell,
Regarding transubstantiation and Miller, I was a bit shocked myself to be honest. It was during a podcast interview (I think it was the Infidel Guy show) when he said it. He spent half an hour talking very eloquently on evolution and then a few minutes on his own religious beliefs and you could not have heard a greater example of compartmentalisation and Im a big fan of his. I truly expected him to explain the miracles of Jesus in terms of metaphor but that is not what he claimed.
Posted by: MartinC | March 17, 2007 3:33 AM
Well, if we can self-identify as anything we want - please refer to me as God.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/rob-knop-and-gospel-according-to-harvey.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 17, 2007 10:25 AM