I posted this on my own blog, but since stu may be intersted in this, I will also post it here.
My aunt just pointed me to this excellent article written by an astronomer-colleague of hers.
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/wiseman_white_paper.pdf
It inspires me to think again about developing a presentation that I could give to church groups. This article could form a good outline for such a presentation.
Merry Christmas Sally, jh, stu.
ReplyDeleteHere's to the civilized world continuing to exist in 2012.
Amen
ReplyDeleteand joyeux noel
to you all
sally,
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for being so slow to get to this. And you should know that I do read your blog, I just don't comment often. If you're looking for a reaction specifically from me, please feel free to email. Anyway...
I have a number of reactions to Wiseman's essay. First off, I share with her the sense of wonder that comes from contemplating creation. Second, I find myself a bit annoyed with her implicit identification of Christianity with Evangelical Christianity. Third, I think she makes some good points that are generally applicable to Christian congregations in the US (distraction, uncertainty), as well as some sharper points that are more specifically applicable only to the evangelical churches (ignorance, controversy). Finally, I find myself a bit frustrated with her naïveté in hoping that the evangelical churches will have the slightest interest in internalizing any truth that is at odds with their preferred "literal" interpretation of scripture.
Let me focus on the later point, because I believe that the first three don't require much by way of clarification.
At the risk of dime-store psychologizing, I see Wiseman as someone whose journey started with a deeply commited evangelical faith, and took her through a rigorous scientific training (according to Wiki, she has a BS in Physics from MIT, and a Ph.D. in Astronomy from Harvard). Her science is observational, and what she's observed has tended to both confirm and deepen her pre-existing religious commitments, without (or so it seemed to her) coming into strong conflict with them. Now, what she wants to do is to lead others with similar a priori faith commitments through the same journey, to her state of both deepened religious commitment and a deep appreciation for the created world.
So what's not to like?
The problem is, that as judged from an evangelical perspective, Wiseman is already apostate. You can't do modern astronomy without accepting a historical time-line that runs to billions of years, and this contradicts scriptural accounts which under a literal reading can't be reconciled with time-lines that are much more than six-thousand years old. Moreover, Wiseman's core message is that creation is good, and it's goodness can be taken as evidence of God's wisdom and compassion. Unfortunately, evangelical churches are shot through with dispensationalist heresies, not the least of which is the pernicious belief that creation is bad.
I share her belief that faith and reason are synergistic, and I applaud her for trying. I know that feeling of double alienation -- that one's scientific colleagues are likely to dismiss faith, while one's coreligionists are likely to dismiss any scientific knowledge that wasn't already known to Aristotle.
But I don't see much reason for optimism that this synergy can be realized through evangelical Christians, so I look elsewhere in hope.
i awoke yesterday morning adn putsted around the house for awhle turned on the tv and there was fritjof capra and leonard mlintovla (or soemthing ) and timothy shriver arguing about the difficulties with scientific discovery and the hard minded ness of christian fundamentalism
ReplyDeleteit seems the scientific world is willing to concede something like god without using the word god but is content to realize as well that things could happen of the their own accord
which does fly in the face of thomas aquinas' first proof
i like mz wiseman's suggestions about applying notions from scientific discovery into sermons and discussions about the world in religious contexts
i feel fortunate that i have a community and and abbot ( a chemist) where up to date notions of science are woven into our world view
although
as you might well presume
i occasionally have to rise in dissent
recently i was in a presentation with vincent smiles and he made the statement that he had no difficulty with any of the sceince it's all beyond reproach scientists are scrupulous and they seek the truth with dilegence...i contended that i believe in fact there is bad science science that need not be
but who can stand up and say that
i mean the churhc used to be able to ut cannot any longer
scientists have provided themselves with a seemingly impermeable wall of moral seclusion
i do nto doubt that they critique themselves but once their work is given a go ahead it defies any moral position which might put a stop to it
i believe we should stop all investigations into the nucleus of the human cell we have no business in there
but who will stand up and support me in ths resistance
when scientists are turning to repairing the damage done by previous "bad applicatons of good science" then i feel like something positive is happening
i want to suggest that scientists are morally obligated to acknowledge the ethical standards worked out by philosophers adn ethicists who happen to be christian catholic even
to the degree that they do not i hold all their discoveries in harsh neglect
the turning point for all of this is to recognize human consciousness
the human consciousness that begins not with "me" but with something with which i am endowed - an intellect- not of my own making - this is my link to god made in his image and likeness - and that i seek god in all that i do even as a scientist seeks truth that in this seeking i am in fact not seeking merely information but i am seeking the "handiwork of god"
if all christians can have this sense it would
be truly a god thing
i like the article a lot
it got me thinking about fr lemaitre
who when called to rome to explain his findings suggested to the holy father that it would be a good thing if priests studied science as a requirement so that thier understanding could reflect the sophistication of modern explorations
if we can accept the universal good of science where it honestly helps then i thin it is a fine thing
then we shall be catholic together
jh
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA scientific mysticism there is which often seems naive or "new agey' IMO. That includes some "franciscan" RC sorts, who look at nature as sort of disneyesque playground, when, as Queequeg might remind us, is replete with all sort of ...nasty critters (a one-eyed albino shark part of Design???spooky either way). AS with Doc Stu Im not entirely comfortable with evangelical creationists, but ...the mystic-franciscan sorts are hardly superior. Some halfway point between the calvinist-- or atheist-- dismissal and the Emersonians, or Dr Behe's would be good.
ReplyDeleteAmericans generally have little experience with harsh or ugly nature anyway--jungles, deserts, polar regions, etc. Anyone who grows up in south india doesn't get too much Jesus, but...deities such as Ganesh and King Naja, etc. The 6-foot long mojave green nearly stepped on a few months back didn't...look overly khristian.
(However I agree in theory Dr S.)
Thanks for the discussion everyone. Having spent years in the evangelical tradition myself, I don't share Stu's pessimism. Certainly I don't expect overwhelming success, but I believe that there are rational Christians in the evangelical world who simply need support.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I was lucky that my experience of evangelical Christianity was formed in large part at Harvard, which is probably not representative of the evangelical tradition as a whole. In my early years at church (mostly an evangelical lutheran church) I don't recall any sermons that addressed creationism or science, so I felt no conflict believing what I learned in science class. At my InterVarsity group in college we had a speaker one Friday night, who told us that the Bible speaks about God and our relationship to God and that it was never intended to be read as a scientific textbook. And somewhere along the line I was introduced to the argument that the word translated as "day" in Genesis 1 is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean something other than a 24-hour period. That was all I needed to move along with no sense of conflict.
In graduate school, I was surrounded by Christians who considered themselves evangelical and yet had no problem with science. I did have one friend who was not sure about evolution but accepted an old age for the Earth and the cosmos. He called himself an "old-Earth creationist". He was real enthused by a local author and speaker, Hugh Ross, who made an argument for old-earth creationism. But in our graduate student Bible study and in the charismatic church that my husband and I attended, I don't think that I was viewed as apostate for accepting the theory of evolution.
As we moved into our professional careers and attended a charismatic church farther from academic centers I did experience more interactions with Christians who were adamantly opposed to evolution and to an old age for the Earth. Usually I simply wrote them off as uninformed and felt no challenge to my being able to legitimately call myself an evangelical.
Five or six years ago, I did attend, out of curiosity, a creationism group at a Calvary Chapel church near our house. I was indeed saddened by the Creationist propaganda and mistrust of science being fed to high-school aged Christians there. One of the adults there, however, upon learning that I was a scientist and that I believed that evolution was a reasonable explanation for the development of life on Earth offered that she herself viewed evolution as the method God used to create, something that I myself was able to agree with.
My conversation with that woman is what gives me hope that there are people in the evangelical church who want to be open to science and who might benefit from interacting with scientists who are also strong Christians.
sally,
ReplyDeleteYou raise excellent points. Certainly, it's an error on my part to view the evangelical community as being monolithic, although in my defense, the Christian right (which I tend to view as being synonymous with evangelicalism) often sounds monolithic to outsiders.
Lutherans have used the word "evangelical" as a part of their self-description since the Reformation, but this usage has little in common with how it is used in standard American discourse. So I'm not at all sure how to evaluate your early experience with "evangelical" Lutheranism, but I'll note that it is unlikely to have been evangelical in the standard American sense. It would be helpful to know the synod/congregation.
I suspect that InterVarsity at Harvard is unrepresentative of the evangelical movement, but that's based on an outsider's view of both. To me, an openness to scientific notions of truth and a willingness to entertain "less literal" interpretations of scripture based on other kinds of truth, seem outside of the evangelical mainstream, although I'm willing to consider the possibility that I'm confusing evangelicalism with fundamentalism, and that this evaluation rests on that confusion.
I have heard the notion that evolution is the means through which God created the diversity of life on Earth. I take less optimism from this than you do, because this is language that's engineered to cover two very different points of view. Scientists tend to use this language as a means of deifying the anthropic principle, or as Polkinghorne might say, that the universe was created by God in such a way as to evolve increasing complexity, but without picking out the winners and losers in advance. Whereas, more literally-minded believers see humanity as the purpose of creation. Evolution to them is essentially the rules God imposed on himself in playing out the game of divine solitaire that we experience as the unfolding of creation in time.
And I don't think that the folks who embrace this language are at all naïve about this internal division. So it seems to me that what's happening here amounts to the self-selection of the participants in the next round of debate, excluding the fire-breathers (the Dawkins's and Falwell's) on both sides, if only because both sides find themselves embarrassed by the company that they're otherwise forced to keep; but it's hard for me to see this self-selection as resulting in a synthesis that is acceptable to both. Either God is actively controlling everything, or he's not.
It seems that Wiseman, and you, and I believe in a God who is "hanging on loosely, but not letting go" which is to say, a God who created the Universe, and who set it up in such a way that sentience would evolve, and with this wills other than his own for him to relate to. This is a God who cares deeply about creation, and so about us. With this comes a Universe in which what we say and do matters, because our will is not an illusion, and our actions in the present constrain the future. I am very doubtful that a God like this would be acceptable to most evangelicals.
Hi Stu,
ReplyDeleteAs always, your clarity of thinking is extremely helpful. I think I'll have to confess that the two views hidden beneath "evolution is the method God used to create" have been conflated in my own mind. It is helpful to see them teased apart so clearly.
I don't, however, share your cynicism about this phrase being "engineered" to purposely cover over an important distinction. In every context that I have heard it used, my sense has been that the parties using it have been sincerely seeking a genuine synthesis. Perhaps the supposed synthesis is too simplistic to withstand scrutiny, but I have never heard it used to feign a compatibility between Christianity and science that the user did not either believe or at least hope to be truly present.
Perhaps in the 5 years or so since I have been engaged in discussions, the intelligent design community has taken over this phrase and intentionally given it the twist you articulate. Even so, that seems like a sort of progress to me. I was never convinced by scientists who proclaimed intelligent design to be nothing more than "creationism repackaged". It is seems to me that intelligent design makes concessions to science that "special creation" did not. If they have now moved toward viewing evolution as a process in which God was involved, then that seems to me like they have come even closer toward alginment with our present scientific understanding. This means that they no longer need to claim that the fossil record was an invention of the devil to trick us, or that it is a fabrication by a conspiracy of scientists. Perhaps they can now stop desperately trying to invalidate the fossil record.
I'm not sure that any of us yet have a clear understanding of how God acts in the world, and until we do, I will not fault those (including myself at times) who take a theistic view of evolution. In the view you describe in your last paragraph, is there room for God to act? Does God act only through us, through drawing our wills into conformity with his? Did he act in coming into the world as Christ? Does he act in the sacraments?
I agree that the view of God that you present would probably not be initially acceptable to evangelicals, but I think some would be swayed to at least be non-condemning of this view, when they have an opportunity to see Christians who hold this view faithfully living out their Christian witness. At the present time, I think the different Christian communities are too segregated for much of this type of interaction to occur.
sally,
ReplyDeleteI don’t see the “engineered” part as being cynical. The purpose isn’t to cover over an important distinction, it’s to exclude the unreasonable, i.e., those who believe that faith, or science, are inadmissible means to truth. And I think it is an optimistic phrase, and I agree with you that the parties who use it are seeking a synthesis, after all, it requires major concessions from the points of view of the excluded parties. My point, though, is that even after you’ve excluded the manifestly unreasonable, fundamental differences remain.
As for intelligent design, I’m definitely more cynical than you. I think you’re right that there’s more there than creation repackaged, but I think it falls far short of a reasonable synthesis. In particular, I think it attempts to impose a theist theology on all parties, which I consider twice inadmissible; and I also think it is admits a “man as the ends” theology, which I also consider inadmissible.
As regards the former, I think that any synthesis is going to have to be realistic and accommodating of people who reject it. Science can be pursued without faith commitments, while faith does not require accepting scientific truth. Intelligent design somehow gets this all wrong. It admits the fossil record, but denies the creative potential and fundamental roles of chance and contingency, and paradoxically destroys the creative spirit of evolution by trying to impose an external spirit on it. Worse, it puts forward a meaningless, morally uninformative theism, conceding a God who is in relationship with us for a clockmaker.
As regards the later, I consider “man as the ends” theology to be excessively brittle in light of the Drake equation, especially if generalized to be universe wide (as opposed to being “merely” galaxy wide). A SETI success should not occasion a crisis of faith.
In the view you describe in your last paragraph, is there room for God to act?
:-). I think it is a false dichotomy to force a choice between “God makes all choices,” and “there is no God.” This was the point to the “hang on loosely, but don’t let go” quote. I see God as real, and indeed as being in relationship with humanity. But I do see him as letting us make our choices, while from time to time intervening by informing us of consequences. The “game” is not divine solitaire. It’s much more complicated and interesting than that.
So I think the right answer to the question “is there room” is “yes, always” but that there’s also room for God not to act, to “let it be.” And most often, that is exactly what he does.
Does God act only through us, through drawing our wills into conformity with his?
I’m not sure I’d accept the formula that God acts by drawing our wills into conformity with his. I think that from time to time, some of us, with misunderstandings and our own retained rebellions, and only by the power of faith granted by God's grace, acheive an imperfect submission.
But here is a place where I’m much more invested in the big principle than the details. I believe God acts where and how he chooses. I don’t think there’s a lot to be gained by trying to tease out God’s habits of choice.
Did he act in coming into the world as Christ? Does he act in the sacraments?
Yes, and yes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Stu,
ReplyDeleteOk, I misinterpreted your use of the word "engineered".
I think I am in pretty close agreement with you on all points.
I think that any synthesis is going to have to be realistic and accommodating of people who reject it.
Yes. Good point.
I consider “man as the ends” theology to be excessively brittle in light of the Drake equation, especially if generalized to be universe wide (as opposed to being “merely” galaxy wide). A SETI success should not occasion a crisis of faith.
You'll have to enlighten regarding the Drake equation. I don't know what that is, though I agree that a SETI success should not occassion a crisis of faith.
I think it is a false dichotomy to force a choice between “God makes all choices,” and “there is no God.”
I didn't intend to present this dichotomy. It had seemed to me that your description of an unfolding universe implied that God's primary activity occurred at the beginning of time, in setting up the initial conditions for this universe that would unfold, without further direction from God, to produce sentient life. It had seemed to me that you were presenting this view as more scientifically satisfying than evolution with man as the ends precisely because, after initiation, God's only role was to watch and to care.
I see God as real, and indeed as being in relationship with humanity. But I do see him as letting us make our choices, while from time to time intervening by informing us of consequences.
It seems to me then that the difference between your view and evolution with man as the ends is only a difference in how often and in what ways God intervenes. It seems to be more of a quantitative difference than a qualitative difference.
I do find your view to be quite satisfying and elegant.
Not all the design people are ditto'ing the "Clockmaker"--that seems to be the evangelical view. Paley's idea probably offends the strict materialists in the natural sciences depts. but may merit a few nano-seconds of reflection--as Darwin himself reflected on a sheep's eye, IIRC, arising ...ex nihilo.
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated, I believe the court decision re IDT was correct: IDT should NOT replace the ordinary bio-chem. curriculum but could be an addendum of some type (e.g, the Clockmaker, Behe & Co, or and Aquinas's Quinque viæ for that matter--tho' antiquated physics, rather subtle arguments (--perhaps that's philosophical in a sense, but ...one might say evolution touches upon phil. topics). Let students decide for themselves, without religious dogmatists --or Darwinian ones--insisting on what they should think.
sally,
ReplyDeleteThe Drake equation was developed by the astronomer Frank Drake in the early 60’s as a tool for estimating the number of observable extra-terrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. In the intervening 50 years, much has been done to refine the various parameters in the Drake equation, and especially in the last 10 as astronomers have developed tools to detect exo-planets.
I’m arguing for a “Goldilocks” God: neither a distant clockmaker, who created the universe as a hands off “screensaver”; nor a meddlesome God, who is making all of the decisions in a game of “divine solitaire.” It seems to me that the key in understanding God’s continuing involvement with the Universe is the concept of “relationship.” God relates to the Universe, and to us as a sentient part of that creation.
You suggest the difference between my view and the view of those with “man as the ends” of evolution is quantitative rather than qualitative. I’m not sure this is right, although there is some truth to it. I see God as relating to the universe as it evolves. There was nothing about the universe that determined that the the earth would be, let alone that man would evolve on it; although the universe was constructed so that life, and indeed sentient life, would evolve, and with it opportunities for God to have active relationships. But earth was formed, and we did evolve here, in a marginally successful roll of the dice, so God relates with us. It is hubris, however, to believe that we’re so important that he relates to us alone. If we make our planet unsuitable for life, it’s not the end of God, nor of his involvement with the Universe. It’s just the end of us. God is the center of the story, not us. We are indeed stewards of the earth, a tiny but not insignificant speck of creation. If we fail, we made creation a lonelier place for God, but not a lonely place.
Well put. In fact, I think I'm going to steal this last paragraph and quote it on my blog.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right that the concept of relationship is key.
sally,
ReplyDeleteYou're more than welcome. I'll be interested in any reactions.
Stu's take on the Clockmaker! Whoa. Like Paley, gone quantum and Carl Saganish (j-k Stu and Sal. But IMO, there is a humanistic element to authentic Christianity--Maria's not a character in Star Wars).
ReplyDeleteWhere's hermano jhito for the proper catholic response? Vaya con Dios
i love the image of god playing solitaire
ReplyDeletewe don't seem to notice when he reshuffles
jh
Walker Percy once said the supposed "death of God" didn't trouble him as much as the death of ...the devil did (or, words to that effect). I.e., both the fundamentalist and the scientific materialist are seemingly unaware of chaos, destruction, suffering; sort of how the Design people never mention the design-flaws... plagues, viruses, natural disasters, etc.
ReplyDeleteManichean J.
It seems to me that in the Stu/Polkinghorne(?) view, viruses serve a purpose by playing a role in the evolution of new species. Natural disasters may also be a side effect of God's allowing nature the free will to unfold as it will.
ReplyDeleteI've also heard it said that plate tectonics (which results in earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunami) is a necessary requirement for the evolution of life, and is used as a criteria for evaluating the possibility of life on other planets. It has something to do with volcanoes being necessary to release the gases that make up an atmosphere, and as a way of recycling carbon that gets sequestered in oceans. (Although, in my understanding, the limestone in which carbon gets sequestered rarely gets subducted and recyled).
Even C.S. Lewis cautioned that Aslan is not a "tame" lion.
Hi S.
ReplyDeleteThe order of the natural world is fairly amazing, volcanoes included. One interesting "Design" argument I read of some time ago involved photosynthesis--w/o it, we wouldn't be breathing at all. In a sense "design" arguments from nature are perhaps evidence for theology but not conclusive proof. Any Deity in charge of the Dept. of Tsunamis --and tectonics, faults, vulcanism, etc--would not IMO be one of Jesus's homeboys.
We might believe, regardless of evidence, or lack thereof--that's faith I guess. Pascal's wager also somewhat relevant: one acts Christian (not only collecting gold stars for sunday school) since that's a safe bet--tho I doubt Stu or Dr. Polkinghorne would care for that view.
Take care.
Hi J,
ReplyDeleteYes, I think the evidence allows one to either beleive in God or not. The evidence is not compelling either way. For me the sense of meaning that I get from Christianity is enough to tip the scales in favor of belief. Not that the sense of meaning lends credence to the idea of God, but that it makes my life more enjoyable. So that's my pragmatic reason for believing in God.
Of course, lately, my experience of religion has not alwasy been enjoyable, so maybe this pragmatic reason doesn't hold as much weight as I once thought it did. ;-)
There's much richness in the comments here. Forgive me a bit of a bulk reply.
ReplyDeletejh,
we don't seem to notice when he reshuffles
I like this :-).
sally,
It seems to me that in the Stu/Polkinghorne(?) view, viruses serve a purpose by playing a role in the evolution of new species.
Not quite. This is an anthropomorphism. Viruses are. They've evolved a successful mechanism for information propagation. To say they have a purpose is to fall not into Polkinghorne's philosophy, but Pangloss’s. Not everything is for the better. That said, I don't doubt that Polkinghorne could craft an argument of the form, "without viruses, we would not have evolved." This is certainly the kind of argument he makes w.r.t. other natural phenomenon like earthquakes, etc. What might be bad for some individuals, might in fact, be essentially for the species, and perhaps even for life itself. But this should not be confused with a claim that viruses have a purpose—that only follows if you add a “man is the ends” theology that Polkinghorne (and I) would reject.
J,
Pascal's wager also somewhat relevant: one acts Christian (not only collecting gold stars for sunday school) since that's a safe bet--tho I doubt Stu or Dr. Polkinghorne would care for that view.
Right you are. I don't respect “fire insurance” Christianity. Christianity is not a matter of intellectual assent to list of beliefs, nor is it a matter of ritual observance. These can support the faith, but they are not the faith. You can't fake love, nor love in the service of another goal. It is its own end, its own means.
sally,
I think the evidence allows one to either beleive in God or not.
Yes. A confirmed atheism is no more or less a matter of faith than a confirmed Christianity. And agnosticism isn't a rational position, it is a defeatest one.
Of course, lately, my experience of religion has not alwasy been enjoyable, so maybe this pragmatic reason doesn't hold as much weight as I once thought it did.
Keep the faith!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA pragmatic religion--I agree with that, Miss S. Usually--except when the preacher-priest crime rate gets too high (or when the evangelicals drive by in the church bus). And alas much as I try to ....hang with catholic people there remain many issues with the RC for me (like your quote a few days from a Paddy who insists that missing one Mass is a mortal sin).
ReplyDeleteS--Im probably not the person to chat with regarding faith--. Swy, all. While Im not an atheist, most of my interactions with religious people and with organized churches have not worked out so well. I hope you don't mind my occasional skewering of religious hypocrisy and phony piety, whether evang. or RC (none here AFAICT but quite a bit around SoCal). Take care Sal.
ReplyDeleteHi J,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your input.
Stu,
Ok, so I lapsed into man-as-the-ends evolution again. I guess you can see how subtly that is ingrained in my head.
Do you think scientists overstep their bounds when they say that evolution has no purpose? Is science qualified to weigh in on questions of purpose, or is that a more philosophical question? Would it be more accurate for scientists (and science textbooks) to say that purpose is not required in order for the life to have unfolded as it has? (Given, of course, the very unique nature of the matter that makes up our universe). It seems to me that the argument against purpose is primarily a philosphical/theological arguement: that is, what kind of God would purposely go down all the blind alleys that evolution has taken?
sally,
ReplyDeleteDo you think scientists overstep their bounds when they say that evolution has no purpose?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If they say that as a matter of scientific principle, evolution has no purpose, they're mistaking personal philosophy for scientific principle. If, on the other hand, they argue that the burden of proof is on those who believe it does have a purpose, then they're on reasonably solid ground.
For my part, I don't see the hypothesis as being scientifically fruitful, and therefore Occam's razor applies. Indeed, I see the hypothesis as being actively harmful to both an understanding of evolution, and to the formation of policy. Let me sketch this out.
The first is that scientific types have an intellectual bias against adding assumptions that are too obviously designed to paper over observational difficulties in special cases. We want general laws, not catalogues of miracles. So the hypothesis that there is a purpose to evolution generally gets reformulated into a more general hypothesis about progress, i.e., that descendent forms are objectively “better” than antecedent forms. But there's a good deal of observational evidence that this is not true in general. Indeed, at the molecular level, randomness and contingency are much more important than adaptation.
The second is that people who view humans as the purpose of evolution/creation, tend also to believe that it is not in our power to fundamentally screw things up. After all, if man is the purpose of cosmic history, we don't need to worry about the atomic bomb, or pollution, or climate change: a triumphant God will somehow ensure our survival as a species. This gets the basic truth backwards: God is the purpose of man, not the other way around. We can and are killing ourselves, and the life expectancy of humanity as a species is finite and diminishing with the bad choices we're making.
Is science qualified to weigh in on questions of purpose, or is that a more philosophical question?
Science tends to distance itself from hypotheses like this, which after all seem to require positing with a purpose-holder, but the basic intellectual stance gets reintroduced via more scientifically acceptable surrogates. I'd argue, though, that these surrogates aren't put forward in a vacuum, and that the non-scientific inspirations of scientists are cruicial to understanding how scientific knowledge is discovered and created.
Thanks Stu,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that descendent forms are objectively better than antecedent forms, but it does seem obvious to me that the descendent forms contain more complexity than the antecedent forms, and that that is a form of "progress" that enables the development of consciousness and relationship with God.
Tell me more about this randomness and contingency at the molecular level. I'm not sure I understand what "contingency" means. Is it the idea that what happens during the course of evolution depends on what already exists and is available to work with?
I'm not arguing that God is directing evolution in a hands-on sort of way. All I'm wondering is whether it is scientifically necessary or accurate for biology textbooks to state that evolution is inherently purposeless. (I'm not sure that they do state this, but I think someone did show me once a textbook that made a statement like that. Of course, I'd need to find it and to go back and look at the exact wording and context of the statement before we could discuss whether or not it was an appropriate statement for a textbook).
sally,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that descendent forms are objectively better than antecedent forms, but it does seem obvious to me that the descendent forms contain more complexity than the antecedent forms
This is mistaken, and indeed kind of homo-centric. We see ourselves as having descended from less sophisticated, less complex forms, and view that as being evolutionarily normal. But in practice, evolution can result in casting off of complex structure, should that structure prove maladaptive. A classic case is blind cave fish—which in some species have lost not just the use, but also the structure of the eye.
and that that is a form of "progress" that enables the development of consciousness and relationship with God.
I think it is more reasonable to understand evolution as a process that tends to increase phenotypic variety over time, but this is in dynamic equilibrium with other processes that tend to decrease phenotypic variety (think here of mass extinction events). If we reify complexity, then it becomes a phenotypic character, and so tends under evolution (absent other processes) to increase in variation. This is a somewhat complicated way of saying that even if evolution does not prefer complexity, it will tend to result in more complex forms.
Here's a thought experiment. Suppose a thousand people start out with 10 cents each. Each of them flips a coin a thousand times. If they lose, they give up a penny, if they win, they gain a penny. But if they hit zero anywhere along the way, they're out of the game. What's the end result of the process? Well, a lot of the people are going to go bust, and few will survive. On average, the game is directionless, which has to mean that the survivors, on average, end the game with much more than the 10 cents that they started with.
Does this mean that the coin-flipping game generates wealth?! I don't think it is reasonable to say so.
I'm not sure I understand what "contingency" means. Is it the idea that what happens during the course of evolution depends on what already exists and is available to work with?
Yup. "Contingency" is just a fancy way to say that history matters. Here's the simple question that makes all clear. If you have an organism, what is more predictive of their genome—the genome of an ancestor that lived a million years ago, or the evolutionary niche in which it lives? The answer, of course, is that the genome of its ancestor is more predictive. This is what makes DNA-based philogenetic reconstruction possible.
I'm not arguing that God is directing evolution in a hands-on sort of way. All I'm wondering is whether it is scientifically necessary or accurate for biology textbooks to state that evolution is inherently purposeless.
This is a tricky question. I think it would be most accurate to say that there's no compelling evidence for purposefulness, and that Occam's razor firmly directs the burden of proof on those who say that there is a purpose. But even in fairly rigorous contexts, it's unusual to speak with such careful caution, and then the question becomes, “what is it about this question that makes it deserving of such philosophical kid-glove treatment?” An honest answer would have to account for the effect of a large number of people who are committed to the belief that there is a purpose, but for reasons that are non-scientific.
And so when we get around to the question of necessity, I think we have to ask, “necessary for what?” If the answer is, “to give a complete account of evolution,” then it is not necessary. But if the answer is “to train students to evaluate scientific hypotheses on the basis of observable evidence,” then I'm comfortable with the notion that it is pedagogically necessary.
But even in fairly rigorous contexts, it's unusual to speak with such careful caution, and then the question becomes, “what is it about this question that makes it deserving of such philosophical kid-glove treatment?” An honest answer would have to account for the effect of a large number of people who are committed to the belief that there is a purpose, but for reasons that are non-scientific.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you've said up to this point. However, if I am going to be careful to weed out the homo-centric language from my talk of evolution, then I also want to be careful to not insert statements about purposelessness go beyond what is required by the scientific evidence. You've been training me to speak with more and more careful caution. Don't tell me now that there is no value to speaking with careful caution or to training students to speak with careful caution!
;-)
I agree that Occam's razor lays the burden of proof on those who argue for a purpose, but it seems to me that if scientists want to use Occam's razor as a philosophical basis for laying down the challenge that evolution (and by implication human life) has no purpose, then they should be prepared to listen to the response, even if that response is based on philosophically legitimate, though non-scientific, modes of thinking. If the philosophical challenge is issued in a science class or science textbook, then there should be room for various valid philosophical responses in that science class. If both the challenge and the response stray beyond the boundaries of what is appropriate for a particular class, then the challenge should not be issued in that class.
I think that there can be valid, non-scientific reasons for holding particular beliefs, particularly if those beliefs are not in direct conflict with scientific evidence. Occam's razor is a useful tool, but it carries no guarantee of always pointing to the truth. I would argue that the scientific method is not well-equipped to answer questions of purpose, and that there might be other valid philosophical arguments that would outweigh Occam's razor in such cases.
I would be curious to learn your views of how evolution relates to theology and to theological anthropology. Would you say that God does have a goal/purpose of relating to a creation that evolves completely freely. Does creation (and human life) have a purpose that is not evident in the process of evolution but that is evident in the initial conditions of the universe? Does God give us the freedom to create our own purpose (and does God watch with intense, loving interest to see what sort of purpose we will create for ourselves)?
I read something the other day that I think sheds light on the questions I asked in my previous comment. The book is The Way of Discernment, Spiritual Practices for Decision Making. The author is Elizabeth Liebert, a Roman Catholic religious Sister (SNJM--I a haven't yet looked up what the acronym for her order stands for)who teaches spirituality at a Presbyterian seminary in San Francisco.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of her book she lays out three assumptions that she views as critical in order for the Christian practice of discernment to make any sense: (1) God is real and the possibility of communication with God exists. She notes that while most Christians would easily give assent to this, we "often fall victim to a kind of functional atheism ... acting as if everything depended on human structures." (2) God is creator all the is, both in its entirety and in its individual parts and that "God is involved continuously in upholding and enriching the on-going creation. ... God is very much active, 'laboring on our behalf,' in the words of Ignatius of Loyola."; (3) "God created human beings with intelligence; with an ability to reflect on ourselves, on God and on other creatures; and with the ability to choose, to direct our own future and to affect other creatures around us."
She includes the following quote from Ignatius of Loyola:
I will consider how God dwells in creatures;in the elements, giving them existence; in the plants, giving them life; in the animals, giving them sensation; in human beings, giving them intelligence; and finally, in this way, how he also dwells in myself, giving me existence, life, sensation, intelligence; and even further, making me his temple, since I am created as a likeness and image of his Divine Majesty.
Ms. Liebert also confronts me with the assertion with with the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly begins: that the chief end of man is "to glorify God and enjoy him forever." She also quotes a similar assertion from Ignatius: "Human beings are created to praise, reverence and serve God our Lord, and by means of this to save their souls."
Thus the Christian faith clearly asserts a God-given purpose for human life. I don't think this need be at odds with the randomness apparent in the creation. I'm not sure how valid the following statement is, but I see the randomness in the universe as a prerequisite to the existence of human free will, which is apparently very important to God. Therefore, I do not interpret randomness in the universe as an indication of purposelessness. And, if we want young Christians to consider engagement with science to be a valid Christian pursuit, it might be worth making a clear distinction between randomness and purposelessness.
I don't know if what I am saying makes philosophical sense. Feedback is certainly welcome.
sally,
ReplyDeleteThanks for keeping the thread alive. I've not forgotten about it. I just have a site visit coming up in nine days for a big center grant. It's been all absorbing, and you deserve a more thoughtful reply than I can give right now.
Peace
Hi Stu,
ReplyDeleteI certainly understand. I hope the site visit goes well.