Image: Matt Collins
Earlier this summer marked the 50th anniversary of C. P. Snow’s famous “Two Cultures” essay, in which he lamented the great cultural divide that separates two great areas of human intellectual activity, “science” and “the arts.” Snow argued that practitioners in both areas should build bridges, to further the progress of human knowledge and to benefit society.
Alas, Snow’s vision has gone unrealized. Instead literary agent John Brockman has posited a “third culture,” of scientists who communicate directly with the public about their work in media such as books without the intervening assistance of literary types. At the same time, many of those in the humanities, arts and politics remain content living within the walls of scientific illiteracy.
Good reasons exist for this phenomenon. In the first place, while we bemoan the lack of good science teaching in our public schools (the vast majority of middle school physical science and math teachers, for example, do not have a science degree), scientific illiteracy is not a major impediment to success in business, politics and the arts. At the university level, science is too often seen as something needed merely to fulfill a requirement and then to be dispensed with. To be fair, the same is often the case for humanities courses for science and engineering majors, but the big difference is that these students cannot help but be bombarded by literature, music and art elsewhere as a part of the pop culture that permeates daily life. And what’s more, individuals often proudly proclaim that science isn’t their thing, almost as a badge of honor to indicate their cultural bent.
There is another factor, one that was on display at the World Science Festival in New York City this summer, which helps to undermine the role of science in society. Amid events on the cosmos, modern biology, quantum mechanics and other areas at the forefront of science, I participated in a panel discussion on science, faith and religion.
Why would such an event be a part of a science festival? We accord a special place to religion, in part thanks to groups such as the Templeton Foundation, which has spent millions annually raising the profile of “big questions,” which tend to suggest that science and religious belief are somehow related and should be treated as equals.
The problem is, they are not. Ultimately, science is at best only consistent with a God that does not directly intervene in the daily operations of the cosmos, certainly not the personal and ancient gods associated with the world’s great religions. Even though, as physicist Steven Weinberg has emphasized, most people who call themselves religious tend to adhere to only those bits and pieces from scripture that appeal to them, by according undue respect for ancient religious beliefs in general, we nonetheless are suggesting that they are on par with conclusions that have been drawn from centuries of rational empirical investigation.
Snow hoped for a world that is quite different from how we live today, where indifference to science has, through religious fundamentalism, sometimes morphed into open hostility about concepts such as evolution and the big bang.
Snow did not rail against religion, but ignorance. As the moderator in my panel finally understood after an hour of discussion, the only vague notions of God that may be compatible with science ensure that God is essentially irrelevant to both our understanding of nature and our actions based on it. Until we are willing to accept the world the way it is, without miracles that all empirical evidence argues against, without myths that distort our comprehension of nature, we are unlikely to bridge the divide between science and culture and, more important, we are unlikely to be fully ready to address the urgent technical challenges facing humanity.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "C. P. Snow in New York."
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
39 Comments
Add CommentDear Editors,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was very disappointed to see in Lawrence Krauss' column (September 2009, p.32), yet one more thinly veiled attempt at evangelical atheism, all in the name of science. Krauss quickly and unabashedly associates the ignorance bemoaned by C.P. Snow (separating the arts and sciences) with religion. In doing so he works to further widen cultural divides and to maintain an unnecessary war between science and faith.
The notion that for God to exist in any relevant way, He must constantly be messing with science, displays complete ignorance of both modern and ancient theological thought. Judeo-Christian doctrine has always held that God not only authored the laws of science, but upholds and sustains them consistently.
Only the shallowest believers or those completely unfamiliar with faith traditions think that a personal relationship with God requires that God respond with parlor tricks or suspend the cosmic natural order. I state this as one who associates regularly with religious fundamentalists.
Krauss tells us to abandon our myths and miracles and accept the "world the way it is." Well, as scientists, we've always been ready to supply our own myths (narratives) to accompany our data. And looking at the broader narrative, more and more physicists are starting to see the "world the way it is" as a miracle in and of itself (fine tuning). The list of intelligent academics who believe science and religion are "somehow related" is long and should not be so casually mocked.
On the one hand, there are those scientists (even nonreligious ones, such as Davies, Penrose, Jastrow, etc.) who have tried to mend bridges by expressing how consistent modern science is with a religious world view, without compromising in the least on evolution, the big bang, and other important theories.
Then we have Krauss, Weinberg and others, who feel that science is threatened by the mere existence of religious thought. Faith and devotion to God are outlandish and harmful. If science describes the laws of nature, it is destined to describe everything possible--faith, love, beauty, and even truth itself.
I am one of thousands of scientists throughout the years who have disagreed with the narrow lens of reality Krauss presents, and have still produced quality science. Please let us continue to do so without being insulted.
Sincerely,
Matthew Huddleston
Matthew Huddleston, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Physics
Trevecca Nazarene University
Nashville, TN
Aye, but arguments can become tedious, and sometimes rampant imagination may add levity to an otherwise heavy discussion. LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom Herman Melville's "Moby Dick", Chap 23;
"Know ye now, Bulkington? Glimpses do ye seem to see of that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore?
But as in landlessness alone resides highest truth, shoreless, indefinite as God- so better is it to perish in that howling infinite, than be ingloriously dashed upon the lee, even if that were safety! For worm-like, then, oh! who would craven crawl to land! Terrors of the terrible! is all this agony so vain? Take heart, take heart, O Bulkington! Bear thee grimly, demigod! Up from the spray of thy ocean-perishing- straight up, leaps thy apotheosis!"
Take heart shipmates, others of our crew may yet find their own apotheosis. LOL
Ishmael,Jr.
Dr Huddleston:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is true that a god who does not intervene in the natural world in any manner is compatible with science. But why stop with gods? You can postulate any entity you want with equal plausibility, so long as that entity never interacts with our reality. And nobody will fault you for that, as long as you refrain from
1) indoctrinating children in your arbitrary choice of faith
2) denigrating other people's choices because they conflict with the opinions of your imaginary friend
3) imposing your baseless beliefs on others through violence and law.
Unfortunately, these things are exactly what many people experience as "religion". If you want atheists to remain silent while you spread a system of beliefs that proclaims them sinners who are destined for eternal torment unless they recant, you need a stronger argument than the mere absence of absolute disproof.
O, gee, I guess we probably shouldn't subscribe to Aristotelian science, either, huh? How terribly enlightening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Judeo-Christian" doctrine is a cover phrase for "Evangelical Christian." It's been disproved as a legitimate term for nearly two decades in cultural anthropological circles. The two religions as modes of thought ("doctrines") are distinct and different: Among other things, Judaism employs a reverence for intellect, argument and "play" with its sacred texts, and has an historical ever-evolving notion of "G-d" while Christianity employs a reverence for stasis, predetermination, anti-intellectualism, anti-science, cultural-theological curbs on argumentation or debate, and "play" vis-a-vis its sacred texts means 'leave it alone' and 'God says...' Historically the connections between the two loosely related religions have been construed by Christians as siblings while Jews see no similarity other than the Christian cultural theft or texts and personalities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt goes without saying that from an atheist POV, both of those traditions are rife with problems that the intersection of science and cultural anthropology often resolves and thus should suggest alterations thereto. This is actually the fundamental problem with "beliefs"; in many religionisms beliefs dictate empirical facts. Krauss seems to be simply making the observation that if one cannot change beliefs to fit the facts, therein lies the gap between science and religion. That's religion's fault. If that feels "insulting" to good scientists like Huddleston, the rest of us simply have to throw up our hands at the impasse of the religionists' own making.
I know it may be tough for a PhD in physics at a religious (Christian) college to appreciate a humanities oriented distinction but, it's the 21st century and time to drop historically inaccurate canards like "Judeo-Christian." It would be nice to discuss science & culture consistent with at least anthropologically accurate terminology.
Science is accomplished by breaking down a problem into measurable variables. Whether or not a person believes in God is not part of this 'art' (and yes, I believe the crafting of a good study is an art). The problem with God is that the belief, or the concept, or the deity-whatever on wishes to call it, slops over the parameters of the study. Speaking from the position of a scientist, unless we know exactly the rules by how 'God' works, and take those into account, we cannot explicitly put God into a study! Right now, if one believes in God, it goes into the random error category of a study, because it must according to the rules of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*sigh* I guess its a sort of cultural joke. I'm sad that some people won't get it, or will take it the wrong way. I'm sad that although so many people seem to hate science, they use the discoveries of science in their lives every second of every day, and to further their belief systems.
Many of us scientists are artists of one sort or another, often later in our lives (when we aren't working 80-90 hour weeks) and we discover music and the visual arts. Snow would be pleased.
By a joke, I meant more of a mental exercise, putting an all powerful, natural world breaking deity into an experiment......It would make the results of experiments uninterpretable, if we always concluded that an experiment worked, or didn't work because God intervened.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy view is that belief in the supernatural doesn't prevent one from practicing science, it just tends to disable any potential for reaching the highest levels of abstraction where its newest and best discoveries lie in wait.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLawrence Krauss bemoans factors that "undermine the role of science in society," then launches into an attack on religions that have a belief in a Creator who is interested and involved in the ongoing development of creation. What Krauss evidently does not realize is that an army of bulldozers could not do a more effective job of undermining acceptance of science than these sorts of pronouncements from scientists purporting to speak for our discipline. While the ability of science to describe and predict natural processes without recourse to "miracles" makes belief in a personal God seem implausible to Krauss, it is very far from proving that such a God does not exist. As long as claims like these are made in the name of science, we can continue to expect tough going in persuading much of the public that the pronouncements of scientists can be trusted. The editorial policies of Scientific American contribute to the problem by giving voice almost exclusively to opinions like those of Krauss and Richard Dawkins.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a possible solution to this conflict. Skilled meditative investigation of the mind can be done in ways that are independently verifyable. Such investigation is empirical, as in science, and it deals with the big questions of life, as in religion. Buddhist philosophy has been developed in this way, and it deserves attention from those who are interested in science and religion. For example, author B. Alan Wallace has written several books on this subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComment on Paragraph 3: I found it odd, that as a science major I had to take history, art and literature classes with students majoring in that field, while the humanities students were offered a "dumbed-down" version of high school biology to "fulfill" their science requirement. Offering "dumbed-down" science classes reinforces an attitude that science classes are an unimportant requirement that needs to be fulfilled and serves to widen the gap between science and the "arts" .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComment on Paragraph 7: Is it possible to obtain empirical evidence against miracles or was that supposed to be a joke?
Has science been able to recreate even a smallest fraction of myriad of variations and complexties existing in natural plant and animal kingdom. Can it create even a single cell which can live for, lets say, 50 years without breakdown and periodic servicing. Anybody engaged in life sciences will realize how lilliputian our scientific acheivements are as of now viz a viz what nature has in store.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDaniel J. Boorstein
Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?
Charles Darwin.
It is difficult to know whether Mr Krauss needs to read more or meditate more. Mr Boorstein is a natural philosopher and Mr Darwin was not an atheist.
What science, and everyday experience, show is that God rarely intervenes in ways that are objectively measurable and violate the laws of mathematics and physics. This is upsetting to some Christians, but it is not a refutation of religion or of God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps God does not need to intervene. As is pointed out in the Szostak article in this issue, it does not seem that magical intervention is required for the development of life on Earth.
If God chooses to intervene, quantum mechanics provides ample opportunity to do so well within physical laws. The analysis of photosynthesis as a quantum process as discussed in the short piece by Moyer suggests that the real mysteries of life may play out in the region where classical and quantum worlds meet.
Ignorance of science is one thing, attacks on science and the teaching of science are another (which often stem from the initial ignorance or misinterpretation). The evangelical right finds it all too easy to be paranoid and believe they are under attack by the likes of Dawkins and even Krauss. Apathy toward science becomes antagonism, perpetuating the conflict. Many scientists, myself included, believe that being a person of faith (I know, another euphemism) is not necessarily incompatible either with being a scientist or accepting the results of good science to be valid. Of course, such a central position brings down wrath from both extemes. For example, the Christian Right (like Krauss did from the other side) accuse us of cherry-picking what we want to belive and what we don't about religion. So be it. Faith is more than adherance to a literal interpretation of any documents. Faith (not necessisarily religion which becomes an institution and polarized) is a personal issue. Faith can be and should be questioned and, like knowledge in general, should grow. Bottom line: for me at least my personal faith does not adversely affect my thinking as a scientist. My total experience is instead amplified. That said, I actively resist any attempts to pervert the teaching of science in the public schools and promote the teaching of "good" science, both in and out of the classroom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would have liked to attended the panel discussion described above. Is a proceedings available anywhere?
I d
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI doubt anyone is still reading this thread, but I'd like to respond to some of the comments above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree completely with katherinebiel that God cannot be put under a microscope or studied scientifically. Those few who try are very wrong headed. Yet if the universe and its laws are His creation, studying it could yield insights into God's character. This was historically one of the main motivations for early scientists during the Enlightenment.
It would seem that history disagrees with royniles if you look at the numerous examples of theists and deists who uncovered some of the most abstract discoveries in science (Copernicus-yes, he was quite devout, Newton, Faraday, Einstein, etc...)
Ron Hodges' comment is a perfect demonstration of how Krauss' approach tends to alienate any of the millions out there who would take religion seriously.
awbrush, by providing a Buddhist perspective, gives one more reason why religion should not be dismissed out of hand by scientists.
I think it is sad that both lix and justjack have such distorted views of Christianity. Yet in all honesty, the Christian community is partly to blame for that. There are definitely enough closed-minded hate mongers who call themselves Christians.
I am not one of them. Neither are any of the thousands of Christian colleagues I know. Well... maybe one or two of them are, but I'm just as mad at them as any of you would be.
Then again, there are plenty of very thoughtful presentations of the Christian perspective that you would find at just about any secular or religious university. Their views aren't radical enough to make the news, so people who don't hang around religion departments may not hear them.
Really, all of that is beside the point. Do any of you think that you have to convince people that their religion (Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc.) is false before you can educate them about science? Good luck!!! That surely isn't what I signed up to do when I became a scientist.
I hope Krauss gets back to science soon. Though even his scientific comments are often controversial (that can be a good thing!), at least they're not insulting.
Matthew
The column seems to display an understanding of religion that is no more knowledgeable than a creationist's understanding of modern cosmology, biological evolution or even the nature of science itself. More to the point, the column seems to display an understanding of religion that is no more sophisticated than a creationist's understanding of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe column seems to display an understanding of religion that is no more knowledgeable than a creationist's understanding of modern cosmology, biological evolution or even the nature of science itself. More to the point, the column seems to display an understanding of religion that is no more sophisticated than a creationist's understanding of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think some of the readers here miss the central point of Krausss article. He states explicitly (and of course correctly) that science does not disprove a God that does not directly intervene in the daily operations of the cosmos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that is not the God of most traditional religions: most traditional religions claim that God has intervened and does intervene in the real, empirical, physical world, and those sorts of empirical claims are subject to testing by science. When that has happened, religion has not come out well (e.g., the grand controversy over creationism).
Furthermore, the ethos of science actively encourages scientists to try to find chinks in current scientific theories in order to disprove those theories and pave the way for new, better theories. I think it is fair to say that few traditional religions actively encourage their adherents to prove the religions central beliefs to be false!
Ive elaborated further on Krausss essay in a post on my blog, Science vs. Religion: Teaching the Controversy, at www.homeschoolingphysicist.blogspot.com.
Sticking our head in the sand and pretending there is no real conflict between science and traditional religion will not change the reality that that conflict exists.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Dave,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour science is right but your understanding of religion, like Krauss', is superficial. Most major religions do NOT teach that God suspends the laws of nature on a daily basis. Instead, God is exalted for designing and UPHOLDING those very laws. This has historically been the position of both Judeism and Christianity (as well as Islam as far as I can tell).
Any descent historian will tell you, for example, that the Italian Church's conflict with Galileo was mostly about disagreements over science and power politics. The Catholic Church had become so enamored with Aristotelian science, they saw an attack on it as an attack on God's order in the universe.
Even young earth creationsist, who have an abismal understanding of science, struggle furiously to show that their theories represent some law or order to the universe that heathen scientists just can't see. Demonstrable miracles are invoked as extraordinary events, not as common occurances, and not like the capricious actions of the Greek gods of old. Where young earth creationists fail, is both in the way they restrict the ability of God to act through known natural processes, and the way that they create their own psuedo-science.
I would also argue that science is more concerned with refining old theories than disproving them. Religions can go through similar processes, but it is also important to note that they DO go about their business in distinctly different ways.
Religions are NOT concerned primarily with proving and disproving ideas, at least not the way that science does. And as physicist John Polkinghorne has said, "If the physicists seem to achieve their ends more successfully than the theologians, that is simply a reflection of how much easier science is than theology."
Now there's a controversial idea for you!
Dr. Hudd
Matt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you seen the book The Dishonest Church by the retired United Church of Christ minister Jack Good?
Rev. Goods philosophical and theological views are slightly more atheistic and materialistic than my own, yet, he chooses to call himself a Christian.
Cool. I (and I think Lawrence Krauss) have no real dispute with Jack Good; we simply have somewhat different definitions of words. Since Jack is very upfront and honest in how he is using words, I do not think he is deceiving anyone, and I welcome his attempts to get Christians in general to be more honest in their reasoning.
Unfortunately, an awful lot of Christians are not as honest as Jack Good.
Too many modern theologians claim to believe in the Resurrection and Virgin Birth but neglect to tell their readers that they are not using those terms in the same sense as the average fellow sitting in the pew on Sunday mornings.
Do you know about the famous exchange between Karl Barth and Carl Henry (then editor of Christianity Today )? At a news conference, Henry asked a carefully phrased question to find out whether the famous neo-orthodox theologian truly believed in a literal physical Resurrection.
Barth got very angry.
You wrote:
>Religions are NOT concerned primarily with proving and disproving ideas, at least not the way that science does.
Indeed. And that is why religions have, for thousands of years, been spreading blatant falsehoods.
You also wrote:
>And as physicist John Polkinghorne has said, "If the physicists seem to achieve their ends more successfully than the theologians, that is simply a reflection of how much easier science is than theology."
>Now there's a controversial idea for you!
No, its just a silly idea: Polkinghorne was a fourth-rate physicist who decided, correctly, that it was much easier for him to make a name for himself in theology than in physics.
You know, I hear this sort of thing repeatedly from defenders of theology. Frankly, it seems to me that theology is quite easy: God is a myth. Class over.
The only thing that makes theology hard is that it is indeed difficult to make obvious nonsense sound as if it is profound and carries some deep truth.
That takes real work!
You want to show me I am wrong? Fine show me something theologians have actually discovered that is really true, as opposed to pointing to all the volumes of Barths Church Dogmatics and assuring me that it will be a life-changing experience if I actually read through all of them!
Dave
Matt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you seen the book The Dishonest Church by the retired United Church of Christ minister Jack Good?
Rev. Goods philosophical and theological views are slightly more atheistic and materialistic than my own, yet, he chooses to call himself a Christian.
Cool. I (and I think Lawrence Krauss) have no real dispute with Jack Good; we simply have somewhat different definitions of words. Since Jack is very upfront and honest in how he is using words, I do not think he is deceiving anyone, and I welcome his attempts to get Christians in general to be more honest in their reasoning.
Unfortunately, an awful lot of Christians are not as honest as Jack Good.
Too many modern theologians claim to believe in the Resurrection and Virgin Birth but neglect to tell their readers that they are not using those terms in the same sense as the average fellow sitting in the pew on Sunday mornings.
Do you know about the famous exchange between Karl Barth and Carl Henry (then editor of Christianity Today )? At a news conference, Henry asked a carefully phrased question to find out whether the famous neo-orthodox theologian truly believed in a literal physical Resurrection.
Barth got very angry.
You wrote:
>Religions are NOT concerned primarily with proving and disproving ideas, at least not the way that science does.
Indeed. And that is why religions have, for thousands of years, been spreading blatant falsehoods.
You also wrote:
>And as physicist John Polkinghorne has said, "If the physicists seem to achieve their ends more successfully than the theologians, that is simply a reflection of how much easier science is than theology."
>Now there's a controversial idea for you!
No, its just a silly idea: Polkinghorne was a fourth-rate physicist who decided, correctly, that it was much easier for him to make a name for himself in theology than in physics.
You know, I hear this sort of thing repeatedly from defenders of theology. Frankly, it seems to me that theology is quite easy: God is a myth. Class over.
The only thing that makes theology hard is that it is indeed difficult to make obvious nonsense sound as if it is profound and carries some deep truth.
That takes real work!
You want to show me I am wrong? Fine show me something theologians have actually discovered that is really true, as opposed to pointing to all the volumes of Barths Church Dogmatics and assuring me that it will be a life-changing experience if I actually read through all of them!
Dave
Focusing on only one aspect of this article, since when did Man outsmart his Creator? God is the greatest of scientists and artists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDave,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou suggest that statements which cannot be proven scientifically are "blatent falsehoods." Sounds similar to logical positivism to me--a philosophically bankrupt perspective that died out decades ago.
By showing comptempt for all theology, you make it clear why you can't understand it. And why not throw baseless insults at a perfectly respectable physicist and former president of Queen's College, Cambridge, while you're at it!
Matthew
Dave,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "Rev." Good may choose to call himself a Christian, but if he is an atheist, that's like me choosing to call myself the President of the United States. Even if he is completely "upfront and honest," at best he is confusing others by reversing the definitions of commonly used words.
I don't know why you are so hung up on miracles, such as the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection of Jesus, that have little if anything to do with science.
This reminds me of a conversation I had 15 years ago when I was a lowly research assistant interning for a few weeks at the Navel Research Labs in DC. I was working with an eclectic group of scientists who were all trying to figure out the source of astrophysical gamma ray bursts, which included a young researcher whom I would characterize as an "evangelical atheist." I remember during a lunch conversation he tried to convince the group, including some distinguished elderly scientists, that the laws of physics could be used to disprove the miracles of Jesus. They all looked at him as if he was from Mars. Then several tried to explain to him that science can't say anything, good or bad, about unrepeatable events.
Science ASSUMES that nature operates according to consistent laws, an assumption that has yielded tremendously affirming results, yet it remains an assumption. Any break from this consistency could only be detected if that break is itself constant (which would make it a new natural law). Science can disprove magic and pseudoscience. But miracles are fundamentally different from magic.
If someone claims to have a magic wand that can turn people into newts, such a claim can be proven or disproven by simply testing the wand's powers. However, if someone claims that he was magically turned into a newt and then "got better" as a one-time event (Monty Python), there is no way to examine such a claim. Of course, if all miracles were as silly as the previous example, arguing over whether or not they exist would be beside the point. Some miracles seem to have much more profound implications, at least to the devout.
Miracles by their very nature must disappear into the backdrop of natural law.
Then there are also broader definitions of "miracle" which would include the scientific consistency and intelligibility of nature itself. This is similar to the view of agnostics such as Paul Davies who claim that the assumptions of monotheism and that of science are closely paralleled.
Matthew
Matt wrote to me:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>By showing comptempt for all theology, you make it clear why you can't understand it.
You are not being honest and you know it.
I show contempt for all astrology: that does not show I do not understand it.
I show contempt for all fortune-tellers: that does not show I do not understand what they are doing, but rather that I understand their con game all to well.
I think you know as well as I that showing contempt for some activity often does not show ignorance but simply an awareness that that activity is dishonest.
I’ve been interested in theology for many decades: I understand a good deal about it -- everything from the difference between homoousios and homoiousios to Kant's explanation of the error in Anselms's ontological proof to Bultmannn's nonsense about kerygma and McGrath’s post-modernist lies.
You can engage in your nasty little ad hominem attacks against me and Lawrence Krauss all you want. That will not change reality.
Matt, in all honesty, I think you are being dishonest.
You want to prove me wrong?
Fine: do as I requested and tell anyone reading this a single thing that theologians have actually discovered that is really true, as opposed to assuring us all that if we will only read even more volumes of theology than I have already read, then we will somehow believe it is not nonsense.
Somehow, I do not believe you are honest enough to do that.
Are you?
Dave
Matt wrote to me:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>I don't know why you are so hung up on miracles, such as the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection of Jesus, that have little if anything to do with science.
Okay, let me try to lay the situation out very simply.
We are talking primarily about the Christian religion here: Lawrence Krauss and I have made clear that we have no particular dispute with vague, deistic beliefs but with the bizarre, factually false claims of traditional religions such as Christianity.
Here is why I, and I think Krauss, see Christianity as being in deep trouble:
1. As you yourself intimated, the early chapters of Genesis make certain claims that all competent scientists know are not literally true. Those chapters in Genesis are either lies, mistakes, allegories, metaphors, or fairy tales.
2. But, if we acknowledge that the first few chapters of Genesis are not literally true, why should we not also give up the literal truth of other parts of the Bible that seem incredible and hard to reconcile with modern science -- the Virgin Birth, the bodily Resurrection, etc.?
3. And, if we do give up those dogmas as being literally true, in what sense is it honest to claim to be "Christians," a point you yourself nicely made for me when I brought up the "Christian" Rev. Good, whose views are pretty much the same as mine and Lawrence Krauss’?
In the above three points, I am merely laying out the thought process that so many theologians in the mainstream Christian denominations have been struggling with for the last two hundred years: from Schleiermacher to Barth to Kung to Cupitt.
If you yourself would actually bother to read some theology, you would find that this is the central dilemma theologians have been struggling with since Kant.
I do not intend to change your mind. Read what Christian theologians themselves have written on all this.
Christianity is in trouble.
Terminal trouble.
Dave
I know I am a glutton for punishment -- everyone else here seems to have abandoned you, Matt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I have a certain fascination with the Christian belief in the word-magic of the word "miracle."
You and I know that science proved that OJ Simpson committed murder. Of OJ had cried out, "No, it's not true -- the evidence cannot be trusted because of a miracle!" no sane person would take him seriously.
The same thing is true of crying "Miracle!" in the case of the Resurrection or Virgin Birth or indeed the six days of Creation in Genesis. Science shows that such things did not happen. Merely crying out "Science does not apply here for it is a miracle!" changes nothing.
Nothing at all.
The word "miracle" is not a magic talisman that invalidates science -- except of course for Christians. Science most assuredly does apply to specific individual instances. Indeed, it would otherwise apply to nothing at all, since *everything* is a specific, individual instance!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, whether one invokes the magic word "miracle" or not.
There is no such evidence for the six days of Creation, the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection.
They certainly did not happen.
They are lies.
Dave
Dave,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou accuse me of an "ad hominem attack" when I suggest that you do not understand religion. Then you repeatedly accuse me of lies and dishonesty.
Do you even know what "ad hominem" means? I never engaged in that line of argument against you or Krauss. In fact, my basic argument against Krauss was that his comments were insulting and derogatoryto others! But I wouldn't bother to point that out if I thought he WANTED to be insulting and derogatory. As far as I know, you are both good scientists and descent people.
For goodness sakes, Dave, if you want to have any sensible conversation with someone, don't accuse them of lies every time they disagree with you.
You have absolutely no idea how honest or dishonest I am. I have absolutely no idea how honest or dishonest you are.
I assumed (perhaps inaccurately) that you were not educated in religion, partly because of your extreme contempt (which you admit), but partly because you seem unaware of numerous very well thought out answers to your basic theological questions.
However, I'm probably not the one to communicate them to you if you think I am a liar. Why should I answer your challenges and questions now?
Good bye,
Matthew
Matt wrote to me:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>Do you even know what "ad hominem" means?
Oh, yes, Matt, I know exactly what "ad hominem" means: it means for example your statement to me:
>>By showing comptempt for all theology, you make it clear why you can't understand it.
I have repeatedly asked you to reply to a very simple question, about as simple as it can get:
> Fine -- show me something theologians have actually discovered that is really true, as opposed to pointing to all the volumes of Barth's "Church Dogmatics" and assuring me that it will be a life-changing experience if I actually read through all of them!
You show contempt for Krauss and me because, in your ad hominem attacks (blatant and vicious lies, in fact), you try to suggest that we are ignorant of theology.
Fine. Please tell us what we are ignorant of. Just one example, Matt, just one significant piece of knowledge attained by theology.
If you really think theology is a serious intellectual discipline, you could easily answer this.
But you won't.
You'd rather insult us.
Fine. If personal insults is all you can deal with, I can make personal comments about you.
Two can play that game, Matt.
No one else here had enough respect to even try to engage you seriously: a "professor" at Trevecca Nazarene "University." Great Darwin! What a con game!
Your "university" includes on its Website ( http://www.trevecca.edu/info/stmtofbelief ) as part of its statement of belief "That the Old and New Testament scriptures" were "given by plenary inspiration."
The statement about "plenary inspiration" is even included on the employment application ( http://sitemason.trevecca.edu/files/eLVHFu/Employee%20App%20409.pdf ), and the applicant has to sign that "I have read and understood the above statements relating to Trevecca Nazarene University. If hired, I agree to abide by these statements. "
Anyone who does not know what "pleanry inspriation" means can Google it:
In Geisler's and Nix's words (http://answers.org/theology/illumination.html ), it means:
>Verbal-plenary inspiration does not permit any historical, scientific, or prophetical error whatsoever. While it is admitted that the Bible is not a textbook on science, it is nevertheless held that every scientific statement in the scriptures is absolutely true.
In simple English, your "university" endorses all of the stupid, evil, crack-pot nonsense in the Old Testament.
And you choose to "teach" there.
That says it all, Matt.
Everyone else here was right.
Dave
Let it go, Dave. You are only embarrassing yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Septembers Critical Mass essay C.P. Snow in New York, Lawrence M. Krauss gives us the Standard Non-Spiritual Model of Science. He states that Ultimately, science is at best only consistent with a God that does not directly intervene in the daily operations of the cosmos, certainly not the personal and ancient gods associated with the worlds great religions. And if God is the operations of the cosmos, the very laws of nature? God is then as personal as the molecular motions within your own body. He further states that we should accept the world the way it is, without miracles that all empirical evidence argues against. How about the miracle that the world or anything at all, rather than nothing, exists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Daley
Buffalo, New York
Bill Daley asked:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>And if God is the operations of the cosmos, the very laws of nature? God is then as personal as the molecular motions within your own body.
Bill, if the word "God" is simply redefined to mean "the very laws of nature," then you are simply using the word "God" to describe what is normally called "naturlaistic atheism." You can do that if you like, but it changes nothing and is unlikely to satisfy traditional religious believers.
Bill also asked:
>How about the miracle that the world or anything at all, rather than nothing, exists?
Well, is it actually possible for "nothing" to exist? I honestly don't know, but it seems to me a question beyond current human comprehension. At any rate, it seems hard to say what it has to do with the existence of a traditional God. If something cannot exist simply on its own account, then neither can God. If God can exist without being caused by something else, then so can an eternally existing multiverse.
I know believers deny this by declaring that "by definition" God can exist without being caused by anything outside himself. But that is just playing with words: a defintion cannot cause something to actually exist in the real world. To claim otherwise is to grant God-like powers to us human beings ("And God said..." turned into "By defintion, I say...").
Odd that Christians who use that line of argument never notice that they are engaged in rank blasphemy, turning themselves into God!
Dave
P.S. The funny characters in your post probably came from cutting-and-pasting from some word processor. This board cannot handle smart quotes, etc., so it is best to compose you post directly in the box provided here.
Amazing that art/music teachers who teach those subjects in the school system did in fact study those subjects in college, giving them more 'sound' knowledge and preparation to teach the subject material versus the science teachers in the schools, yet, Mr. Krauss forgets to mention this. Also, just because a science "type" is bombarded, (interesting word Krauss uses) by the arts via the culture, does not equal to the knowledge that an educated artist has, plus, this science "type" doesn't necessarily learn about the subject matter. Krauss doesn't give credence to the depth of "art", as he hasn't possibly experienced the depth of the arts himself and the education and integrity required to be an artist in this culture. Artists are generally not illiterate about science, we are interested in EVERYTHING, as I believe scientists are too. But humans can't be an expert in all subjects, so we pick one or two or three.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would not Krauss to represent me as an artist or you as a scientist. He doesn't seem to be involved heart and soul.
Krauss's assumptions are bothersome, and too quick of thinking on his part, departing from what could be a much more interesting and engaging subject for discussion. I had hopes that he could emerge from being so philosophical and lead this discussion down a different road.
jtjules1 wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>Artists are generally not illiterate about science, we are interested in EVERYTHING...
Really?
Play pieces by Bach, Tchaikovsky, and Stravinsky, and I, and many technical people, can tell you which piece is by which composer.
Show us paintings by Rembrandt, Monet, and Picasso, and we can probably tell you who painted what.
Can you yourself tell us the separate contributions of Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and Bohr? Or, to go back a bit further, Galileo, Brahe, and Newton? (No help from Google or Wikipedia allowed!)
If you can, you are rather exceptional among artists!
And, one other little thing -- science is the best knowledge we have about the structure of reality: it is the same in London and Beijing, New Delhi and New York.
Obviously, art does not have quite that level of cross-cultural objectivity.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Yes Dave, we can be excepional. Sorry that you have competition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJtjules
This is such rubish! So it's ok for science and engineering majors to have no clue in cultural matters (oh, they already buy the dirt the mass media churns out), but it's not ok for humanities majors to have no clue about science? Is it not enough already that all resources in this country go to science and engineering when the humanities live from peanuts? Talk about a distorted view, and "complaining with a full belly"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Editors,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrauss' C.P. Snow write-up is offensive in several ways.
Starting with the practical punch line - look at Krauss' work as a theoretical physicist and his call "to address the urgent technical challenges facing humanity". Any overlap there?
How rational and levelheaded is it to portray such an idealization of science? A big affect of such arrogance is to intimidate the public and media into being unquestioning of science.
Finally, his comment that we "accept the world the way it is, without miracles that all empirical evidence argues against" exemplifies science's rigid adherence to a material-only view of life. Even as science's most basic and beloved assumption about life - the connection between genotype and phenotype - is getting clobbered in the health and behavioral realm, it would be career suicide for a scientist to consider a non-material explanation. Would, for example, a scientist seriously consider reports of young children with apparent recall of a previous life (as recommended by Carl Sagan) or near-death experiences? No chance.
Ted Christopher
Rochester, NY