Sciblogger Rob Knop of Galactic Interactions has learned that the best way to attract comments to a science blog is to post something about religion. (Hence the title of this post; we all like site traffic). I suspect that religosity -- the official SciBlog descriptor is the euphemestic "Culture Wars" -- is one of, if not the most popular category here. Why is that? Probably because it's much safer to weigh in on a subject that doesn't actually constitute a field of knowledge than something like epidemiology, particle physics or behavioral ecology. When it comes to the supernatural, everyone and no one is an expert.
But I digress. My point is, Rob is one crafty fellow.
By coming out as a "Christian" but only teasing us with promises of explaining just what it is he actually believes in future posts, this assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Vanderbilt University drew the predictable and populous reactionary crowd of those who can't understand how one can be both a scientist and person of faith, as well as those tolerant types who love to read anything that counters the Richard Dawkins school of religion-bashing.
I'm curious as to the specifics of Rob's particular version of Christianity, as he seems to resist being pigeon-holed by the most common definitions. More importantly, however, I am one of those who finds it hard to understand how one can embrace what it means to be a scientist, and still find it possible to believe in the supernatural.
Non-scientists have no trouble operating under a world view that incorporates the divine. But 93 percent of the National Academy of Sciences have rejected religion for good reason. To heck with believing six impossible things before breakfast; one is too many, in my opinion, for a professional that must bring a generous dose of skepticism to the job every day. This explains why, as Rob himself points out,
on scienceblogs, the religious are the persecuted minority, which is why I get all defensive.
Which is as it should be. I'm all for heterogeneity. I mean, if every science blogger was an atheist, that would suggest the good people at Seed were using non-religiosity as a criterion for inclusion on this most wonderful collective. That would be wrong. When it comes right down to it, I know a number of intelligent, respectable men and women of science who are religious. Plus, there's always the question of what's motivating the other seven percent of the NAS membership. I welcome their input and insight. But again, I don't understand their faith and how they reconcile it with their chosen profession. Defensive is what they should be. The onus is on the believers, not the skeptics, to defend themselves.
I'm just hoping that Rob gets around soon to explaining himself. If he does half as good a job at it as he does discussing science fiction novels, it should be most illuminating.
- Log in to post comments
Yup, so far it's been mostly a teaser about what he isn't, not what he is. BTW, you spelled his name wrong, it's Knop.
It could just indicate that extensive brainwashing from an early age is difficult to overcome. I hope that Knop delivers something more substantial than the well-known human ability to compartmentalize. It is possible, for example, to be botha a Jew and an officer in the SS, but to say the two are "compatible" would stretch the common definition.
I am certainly looking forward to Rob's explanation. For years I have tried in vain to understand the basic philosophy of the non-fundamentalist Christian. Fundamentalists are consistent. The bible is true and that is that. If science conflicts, science is wrong, but someday it will figure out that the bible was right all along.
To be a Christian, you pretty much need to know what Jesus said and believed. Once you admit that the bible is only a little true, you must pick and choose which parts to believe. I suppose that may be the appeal, you can make Jesus say anything you already agree with, but most of these people are smart enough to see that this pretty much sucks as a philosophy.
If you ask a non-fundy Christian about this, they basically agree (without using words like "suck"), but they don't change their opinions. Rob is a professional empiricist. I hope to finally get some answers.
The galling problem with that description is that the predictability et cetera of coherent rationalists is anything but - I was positively surprised when it turned out that these things were possible to discuss on the internet. It is also tolerant since no one suggests that freedom of religion is wrong, nor dogmatic since evidence can change the conclusion.
But it isn't respectful, which in turn galls most religious since they use special pleading a lot. Poor Rob.
I was reading this again, since I missed Rob saying this. It hits me that he can't have read much of scienceblogs, courtier's and all, which explains why he comes out swinging so early.
Especially he attacks Pharyngula ("PZ's sycophants", IIRC) where he has been seen ranting (a fair description, I believe) a lot. OTOH Scott Hatfield, a very sympathetic christian, was recently named the male blogger of the month. The main difference probably being that Scott isn't at all defensive.
Stay well away from theoretical physics then. Believing impossibly things is what physicist do. Ok, ok, perhaps not impossible things exactly, but certainly very weird and counter-intuitive things. There is much crankery generated by those who can't handle that.
Now skepticism is, of course, required as well; there are after all many theories that are weird, counter-intuitive, and wrong. How Rob Knapp applies this skepticism to Christianity (and I presume he does) ought to be very interesting.
Agree with the observations about physics, which teaches us a lot about the difficulties inherent in nailing down reality, much less anything that could be described as "divine." Seems to me that the position that one can prove a negative, ie that the divine does not exist, is indefensible scientifically and rationally. Also, to compartmentalize the things one knows subjectively from the things one knows objectively is the path to sociopathy, not to a greater grasp of truth. Ultimately the truths of a spiritual nature seem to emanate from the subjective realm, where one believes in things like love whether one has the guts to assert it at a cocktail party or not. This argument has been raging for centuries...are people really curious about each other's positions, or simply want to destroy them before honestly considering them? If the latter, how is that scientifically defensible?
Science and theology are easy to do together. Science is accepting things where the evidence suggests some idea reflects some reality. Religion is where you accept something without any kind of evidence at all. However, you may still use a convincing argument.
Take my favorite example. In Last Thursdayism, we accept that the Universe was created pretty much as it is today, not 13.7 billion years ago, but closer to Last Thursday.
Why would God do that? Well, God wants a believable Universe, but is too lazy to create a full one. You see, if the Universe can be simply recreated every week, then it only has to be about two light weeks in diameter. Sure, there are lots of photons whose trajectory needs to be just so, but nothing like the effort of creating some 10^80 sub atomic particles. God is lazy. It's simple, and explains alot. So, yes. God created popcorn, and the Hubble Space Telescope, and sex, and microwave ovens.
What is harder to believe is that God created Daylight Savings Time. Feh.
Wow, I'm convinced! Thanks, Stephen.
tharding:
I see where you're coming from, but consider this. Apart from the The God Delusion-style pseudohistorians, pretty much everyone, historians included, agree that Jesus existed. Most would concede that the record that we have of what Jesus said and believed, and even most of what he did (leaving aside "miracles"), is pretty good stuff, even if it's not journalistic-historically accurate or even particularly original.
I've heard lots of people say that the Old Testament deity, especially the very early stuff, is a pretty standard tribal deity. But I've never heard any intelligent person say that the philosophy espoused by Jesus (whether Jesus the historical person or Jesus the semi-fictional character) is in any way bad. (OK, maybe Ayn Rand worshippers might say that selflessness is immoral, but we can safely discount them as being fundamentalists of a different stripe.)
So I really don't see what the problem is here. People like Rob who follow Jesus' example and philosophy don't need to "pick and choose", because, to a first approximation, there's nothing really objectionable in it.
This argument, of course, applies to a number of other philosphies, too, like Buddhism, Taoism or Secular Humanism. And Rob seems perfectly cool with that. Whatever works for you, and all that.
Aargh! Sorry, I meant The God Who Wasn't There, not The God Delusion. I humbly apologise to Prof. Dawkins for lumping his fine, reasoned book in with a terrible piece of pseudohistory.
I used to know a physics student who, for his MSc research, was working on a radiodating procedure suitable for rocks hundreds of millions of years old. And I was told he was one of the top students, too. What puzzled me was that he was also a Young Earth Creationist, believing that the Earth started about 6000 years ago.
Unfortunately I never asked him how he reconciled the two as I've been brought up to not criticize someone else's religious beliefs unless they are obviously harmful, but I have always wondered.
" But I've never heard any intelligent person say that the philosophy espoused by Jesus (whether Jesus the historical person or Jesus the semi-fictional character) is in any way bad. "
C.S. Lewis a christian apologist states something very much to this effect. Paraphrased: Christ is either a Lunatic, a Liar, or Lord God. The claims he made cannot simply be dismissed as no one would say anything he said was bad. the good moral teacher blah blah blah. He made the statement that he is "I AM": as in one in the same with the eternal and existant one( BTW a pretty complex thought for tribal dieties ). Like science, Christianity provides but one answer. Science purportes to find truth. Can we exclude all the human bias that you can find in a scientist the same as any pastor. Once you don a white lab jacket do you assume a set of principles devoid of human error? Scientist hate to be proven wrong as much as any other person. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen ( Heb 11:1 ) conviction does not come without its own proofs. The bible is a set of testimonials. These people could have been liars as to the accounts they witnessed. They died to a man ( excepting John ) deaths that could have been prevented by simply recanting. Not one did. Despite being crucified, or drawn and quartered. I have my own witness to God's grace in my life. Thats when a scientist may be a believer in the evidence presented in the world. It is in a personal experience. does this experience warp a humans mind to prevent a logical valid thought to occur. On the contrary it opens a new dimension of possibility and complexity that niether time nor random chance could possibly answer. I hope I have been able to provide a credible witness to my faith in Christ and the TOOL i use to support it...ie science
Augustus Strong provided a critical insight to the complementary relationship between theology and science when he observed that "creation is a truth of which mere science or reason cannot fully assure us. Physical science can observe and record changes, but it knows nothing of origins. Scripture supplements science, and renders its explanation of the universe complete." Therefore, it is important for both scientists and theologians alike to understand that even though science may explain observations in nature by certain verifiable processes or natural conditions, these occurrences in no way preclude divine purpose in their existence and operation. Recognizing the different yet overlapping realms of theology and science creates no problem for a person to be both a Bible-believing Christian and a scientist.
The Christian's unshakeable faith in spiritual truth should confidently seek to engage with the world of scientific "truth". Such dialogue can serve as an effective and critical bridge to the educated and influential scientific elite and with a western, "science-minded" society bathed daily in the obvious and tangible reality of scientific progress and "truth". In addition, those of opposing views within the Church would benefit from open discussions on this broad subject.
It is certain that in failing to abide science, theology will maintain a certain unchanging surety of doctrine (which science has previously corrected), but it will also erect and maintain a massive and virtually impenetrable barrier further isolating secular western society from the only real opportunity and means of bridging the gap between scientific knowledge of How? and When? with the vastly more important theological knowledge of Who? and Why? The stakes are eternal...
I took the liberty of incorporating your correction. Now: you seem to be contradicting yourself. Those who claim that Jesus didn't actually exist you call pseudo-historians, but then in the last part you admit the weak historicity of the accounts.
Moreover, that someone named "Jesus" existed in Palestine 2000 years ago is in no way exceptional; it is a very weak claim. It is comparable to claiming that someone named "Michael" exists today in Rhode Island. So if Jesus existed, but wasn't truly magic, then there simply is no story. As for the collection of teaching attributed to him, they are not original, and I don't believe all of them came from the same person. Some of the parables are right wing, some are left wing.
Mr. Knop threatened to ban me from his blog for accurately describing his behaviour. That would have been a hoot.
Mr. Knop's ploy may backfire. He will get a temporary buzz from the spinning of the hit counter, but with the performance he's putting on, he has convinced me that he cannot think his way out of a paper bag, and cannot handle stand being questioned on a topic he started. He won't be a part of my regular circuit. I'm guessing there may be others who are reaching the same conclusions.
Rob Knop Rob Knop Rob Knop Rob Knop. Okay got that out of my system... People who agree with Shelly Bats and Rob Knop that religion is OKAY, this is for you, so you can better understand why religion must be stamped out...
Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. 29 Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her
Deuteronomy 7:1 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. 2 Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
Leviticus 21: 9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father; she shall be burnt with fire.
Shelly, I would like to buy into this Bible stuff like you do, but it seems too violent for modern society. Here is how a moderate Christian defends abortion...
"The Book of Exodus clearly indicates that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person (Chapter 21:22-23). That verse indicates that if a man pushes a pregnant woman and she then miscarries, he is required only to pay a fine. If the fetus were considered a full person, he would be punished more severely as though he had taken a life."
That is the kind of stuff that Christians like Shelley are fine letting others believe. Here is another example...
"By our deepest convictions about Christian standards and teaching, the war in Iraq was not just a well-intended mistake or only mismanaged. THIS WAR, FROM A CHRISTIAN POINT OF VIEW, IS MORALLY WRONG - AND WAS FROM THE VERY START. It cannot be justified with either the teachings of Jesus Christ OR the criteria of St. Augustine's just war. It simply doesn't pass either test and did not from its beginning. This war is not just an offense against the young Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice or to the Iraqis who have paid such a horrible price. This war is not only an offense to the poor at home and around the world who have paid the price of misdirected resources and priorities. This war is also an offense against God."
Seems like that Christian has actually arrived at the right destination (one of the few who has), AMAZING! I guess the only problem remaining here is the compass (RELIGION), which can be unreliable and is easily misinterpreted.
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/
Leviticus 20: 27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.
Cheers to PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (and myself), who can see the danger in sadistic "fairy tales".
thanks..