Those of you who stopped by this blog on Friday afternoon might have quickly glimpsed a post that is now missing. There's a good reason for that. I had noticed that in May at least three books about theistic evolution/the "theology of evolution" were released (Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo, The Deep Structure of Biology: Is Convergence Sufficiently Ubiquitous to Give a Directional Signal, and Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution) and I made a few snarky comments about them. Being that I haven't read any of them I didn't feel quite right about what I said and decided to pull the post.
I was ready to trash the post entirely when I saw the AAAS clip about the compatibility between religion and science over at Framing Science, a video that made me go back and reconsider my relatively off-the-cuff post. Here's the clip;
The first question ("Are science and religion in opposition [to each other]?") illustrates what I see as a major problem in the various attempted reconciliations between evolutionary science and theology. The question is so broad that simply saying "No" overlooks the greater diversity of responses that could be given depending on what a particular individuals belief system is. Is it possible to accept evolution and be a Christian? Absolutely, but if you happen to be someone who thinks that belief in a narrow, conservative interpretation of Genesis is essential to Christianity then science and religion are going to be at odds. Even under more liberal interpretations of religious doctrine there will always be some amount of doubt and conflict; the question is what you do in those situations.
As I noted yesterday there seem to be more popular books about evolution vs. creationism (or books that put evolution in the context of science vs. religion culture wars) than about the actual science behind evolution itself. Within this broader category there are a number of titles that seek to reconcile Christian theology with science, books like Finding Darwin's God, The Language of God, and Thank God For Evolution. Are these books making any difference? That's the question that I want to leave open to discussion here.
I enjoyed Finding Darwin's God (although I often find older works like Hitchcock's The Religion of Geology more interesting) but I generally haven't been very interested in many of the other titles that have been put out. (I've sometimes commented that I'm about as interested in The Language of God as I am in The God Delusion. I will probably read them eventually but I just don't find the subjects particularly compelling, especially when I've got stacks of technical papers and science books to get through.) Rather than seeking to understand nature and using that to ask questions about religious doctrine I get the impression that in many cases nature is still being forced to fit into a particular religious view (like Collins' BioLogos program). The distinction might be subtle, but it still seems that many works that seek to reconcile evolution and Christian theology are still trying to understand nature by reading the Bible rather than using nature to understand God.
Simply put, I've become pretty bored with all the material that has been produced proclaiming "Science does not conflict religion." Such statements are so generalized to be practically meaningless and it doesn't seem like they're making much of an impression, especially for people who do feel that such conflicts exist. If you're a liberal Christian conflicts between science and Scripture may be minimal enough that they're a non-issue, but if you are holding on to Genesis so tightly that the creation of Adam from dust is central to your faith then there are going to be some rather stark contrasts. Indeed, it seems that volume and repetition is being confused for meaningful content, a method that serves no one well.
Coincidentally, this song came on my playlist just as I was finishing this post;
- Log in to post comments
Yep. And if you're a liberal Christian employed at a college run by people who like to hold tightly onto Genesis, you might find yourself pressured, harassed and, eventually, forced out of your job. Speaking purely hypothetically, of course.
Yep. And the more science you know, the more likely that is to happen. When all you've studied is molecular biology, let's say, then it's easy to think that the Watchmaker's fingerprints were left over in cosmology, or over there in cognitive science. The more you actually know about quantum physics, the harder it is to squeeze your father's God into the quantum gaps. This is the path to "cultural Christianity" and claims that God is the Essential Precondition of Being — attitudes which others who also self-identify as Christians regard as no better than atheism.
It's a real problem, and not one I'm optimistic about. This is where I channel River Tam and say, "Things are going to get much, much worse."
It's also important to distinguish where exactly one feels the conflict lies. Usually when someone says there is no conflict between science and religion, they mean there is no conflict between the findings of science and their religion. Whatever fact science discovers about the real world, the liberal theologian can find room in their religion to accommodate it.
Even creationists often say they have no problem with most findings of science, only evolution. Of course, since the evidence of evolution is found in such a wide variety of scientific disciplines, its a fatuous claim. One cannot treat the findings of science like a salad bar, where one picks only the conclusions one likes best and ignores the rest.
However, usually when someone says there is a conflict between science and religion, they mean there is a large conflict between the methods of science and the methods religion. The scientific method is applied skepticism. It works by putting assumptions to the test, eliminating human biases, and letting the evidence dictate belief. Science rests on the premise that truth is universally accessible. Religion, in contrast, functions on the premise that truth is specially revealed to a select few, or only to those who cast aside their doubts and decide a priori to believe despite the lack of evidence. Religion depends upon fostering bias, not eliminating it.
Watching this video, I feel I am seeing a series of intelligent people who have compartmentalised science and religion mostly into separate areas of their minds, (and not all in the same way) and they are flicking backing and forth between them like radio dials.
I'm sure the ways in which they've wrapped the notions up is as complicated as rolling two colours of playdough together for 2 minutes.
There's a sort of subtext I feel like I'm hearing, saying, "look at me! I can keep God and evolution in my mind at the same time, and my brain didn't implode! I'm right, everyone join me over here!".
Like vegetarians who eat fish. Vegetarian is the wrong label. Maybe there needs to be a different way to describe fence-sitters. NOMAds, ot NOMAanians or something.
I should clarify the playdough comment. In case you haven't tried it in a while, the colours get blended and linked and smeared together in a very very complicated way.
I didn't intend for that to read like the ideas were as simple as the act of rolling playdough together.
Glendon,
Here in the UK the term used for those who would be vegetarian but for their eating fish is "demi-veg".
I imagine the people who coined that expression think that a woman can be demi-pregnant.
I rather like the term NOMAd, and would sign up for it myself were it not being using in (if I'm reading this right) a rather derogatory sense. I certainly wouldn't equate it with "fence-sitter", though.
Needless to say, I don't at all agree with the comment that "Religion depends upon fostering bias, not eliminating it." This is a widely held (and to be fair very understandable) misconception. Anyone who wants to understand why I and others say this (rather than merely contradicting me reflexively) would find C. S. Lewis's essay "On obstinacy in belief" interesting.
Michael P. Taylor, can you provide with the essay, or at least put the main points in your own words? My past experiences with Lewis' apologetics have led me to conclude that he is a dishonest thinker who uses logical sleights of hand and false equivocations to reach untenable conclusions. I've never read anything by him that I would call a good defense of Christianity or of religious faith, but he seems popular with those who need to be told that there are reasonable-sounding justifications for their weakness for magical thinking.
Of course, as any critical reading reveals, there really isn't. I have a hard time believing this instance would be any different, but I welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that my comments are not misconceptions and my conclusions are anything but reflexive. Religion does depend on fostering bias, demonstrably so. It simply cannot exist without huge doses of wishful thinking and self-deception. The idea that religious faith is reasonable, justified and well-grounded: that's the true misconception here.
Gosh. H.H., you make it sounds really tempting to discuss this stuff with you! I'd better retype Lewis's essay as soon as possible!
:-)
Seriously, I can see that we're not going to find any meeting ground on this subject, so let's both spare ourselves the unpleasantness. You and I will have more fun talking about evolution than about religion.
I find it a shame, Michael P. Taylor, that after volunteering to set my "misconceptions" straight you are now withdrawing the offer. But no, there can be no meeting ground between us if by that you mean I must treat religious assertions with a deference unbefitting them. Understand that I hold nothing against you personally. You seem like a level-headed and otherwise intelligent man. I just think you're wrong.