AskThePriest.org

Father Matthew Presents: Pastime Pardon

What is the deal with the saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin?" Is it of any value? Episcopal priest, Matthew Moretz, plays a game of Scrabble with his friend, Jehosephat, they have a fight, and the character of forgiveness is explored. This video is part of the "Father Matthew Presents" series, produced out of Christ's Church, one of the oldest Episcopal parishes in the country, in Rye, New York. www.ccrye.org

Anglican, Episcopal, Father Matthew Presents, Podcast, theology, YouTube, forgiveness

Excellent Video on Julian of Norwich

Episcopal Café has an excellent video from Trinity Television on the patron saint of my religious order, Julian of Norwich (see my post here). Click on the image to link to the video there.

Anglican, Christianity, Episcopal, Julian of Norwich, Religion, saints, theology

Science and Religion Redux

A lot of activity in the Science and Religion area around Darwin's Birthday....

A reader writes in (edited).....

I am a doctoral student in the behavioral sciences at one of the top universities in the nation. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home. At the age of 16 I became a reactionary atheist due to the horrific treatment I received at the hands of Christians. As my knowledge of science and the scientific method grew as my education progressed, my reactionary atheism transformed into a rational and dispassionate atheism grounded in science.

Last year, I felt the need to find a way to reconnect with my Christian faith. I had a "conversion experience" last year, and I eventually found my way to the Episcopal Church where I was confirmed. Initially, faith came to me quite easily. I immediately became active in the parish, and I currently lead evening prayers and participate in spiritual direction. My initial burst of faith was unfortunately short-lived. I have nonetheless remained active in my parish and try to attend mass several times during the week and, of course, on Sundays. As a scientist, however, I am finding it increasingly difficult to have faith due to my knowledge of science. No matter how much I try to reconcile faith and reason, as a scientist I cannot escape the conclusion that atheism is the only intellectually honest position one can take. Intellectually, I would describe myself as an atheist-leaning agnostic. I desperately want to be able to recite the creeds with conviction, but right now I simply cannot do so. This saddens me. As a scientist I know that the existence of the God of the Nicene Creed is so statistically improbable that this God almost certainly does not exist. Nonetheless, when I approach faith from a phenomenological perspective, I am absolutely certain that there is a God. Indeed, I have felt God's presence in prayer and meditation.

As a scientist, though, I simply cannot abdicate my knowledge of and appreciation for the elegance of the epistemology of the scientific method. So while I can accept a phenomenological argument for the existence of a nebulous Higher Power as valid, I find a phenomenological argument for the existence of the Christian God (or the God of any religion for that matter) to be woefully inadequate.   Phenomenology is incapable of confirming the truth of the Creeds, and the scientific method essentially disproves the creeds (although the scientific method cannot prove a universal negative, it has certainly compiled an overwhelming amount of evidence that comes close to doing just that). My doubts are unfortunately impossible to shake because facts are facts. When reason and faith are at odds, I am incapable of choosing faith over reason because I would have to lie to myself in order to do so.

I may sound like I am parroting Richard Dawkins, but the truth is that I desperately want to have faith. In fact, I constantly pray for the gift of faith but so far that request has not been granted.

Dear Reader,

First, you might read "Blasphemy Challenge Coda - Reading Dawkins and Polkinghorne" and the entries that are linked on that page. I did a lot of dialog with a Swedish Atheist a year ago or so.

Since we are commemorating Darwin this week, it might be good to give this a shot from another direction - let's look at the series of deductions that might lead a person from observation (in this case in biology) to the conclusion that there is no God....

1. I've observed multiple generations of fruit flies and those with better adapting mutations survive better.

2. I've observed multiple species, noticed the vast similarities, and come to the conclusion that this process of mutation, over a long period, led to the development of more complex life from simpler life forms.

3. Noting that the strong survive, I've concluded that struggle is the motive force behind evolution. "Survival of the Fittest" is the law of the biological universe.

4. Religion claims that God is in control of the universe, but I have established that natural forces do so through struggle. Religion also claims miracles as "Supernatural" interventions by God. I have no empirical evidence of this. Religion also claims that a higher power created the world, but there is again no empirical evidence.

5. All the claims by religion are not backed up by empirical evidence. Therefore, the primary claim of religion, that a higher power exists, is also false.

Let's take this one by one - note that we move further from observation the further we go....

1. This is an obvious claim supported by common observation - even Creationists allow for mutation.

2. This is where Creationists drop off due to belief in Biblical Literalism (See The Heresy of Literalism). Christians who are not literalists see no issue with evolution. Even with gaps in the evolutionary record, the evidence is overwhelming and the basis of modern Biology. It's important to note here, though, that we are moving away from simple observation into extrapolation of data. This is a hypothesis without complete proof, even if the preponderance of evidence leans overwhelmingly towards this view.

3. Now we have moved to hypothesis. This was Darwin's understanding of the motive force behind evolution. However, it was a hypothesis tied to his time. As Elisabet Sahtouris has pointed out, this is an Economic model of evolution, which was the popular model for everything in Darwin's time. This assumption is being challenged from several sides these days. Sahtouris' challenge is especially interesting because she puts forth the idea that consciousness controls evolution and claims that evolution is actually more about cooperation than competition. I've often wondered what evolutionary models would look like if Evolution had been first described by a woman - now I have at least one answer.

4. Now we have moved from hypothesis to conjecture, and conjecture not just on science, but on what religion "is about." While science is rightfully concerned about our origins, it is almost a sidebar for religion, except for fundamentalists who are essentially practicing a strange fusion of religion and scientific epistemology. (Once again, see The Heresy of Literalism) Religion is about meaning in life, a question that responsible science cannot hope to answer in more than a mechanistic way. Scientists can speculate on meaning, but when they do so, they are engaging in philosophy, not science (Most of Dawkins' books are this kind of philosophical conjecture). Religion does not rely on a creation story or a set of miracles - that kind of reduction of religion is a misuse of the scientific method.

5. If the hypothesis is that God exists and that we are not God, then it stands to reason that God may not be discernible by methods we develop. A lack of empirical evidence does not make for proof. This level is a purely philosophical jump and would never come up if there was not an axe to grind.

The problem is, we get so wrapped up in what we see as the scientific method, that we are seldom critical of it. John Polkinghorne has pointed out the divide between Quantum Physicists (who are often mystical emergentists) and Evolutionary Biologists (who are often Practical Reductionists) in regards to the philosophy of science (see again Blasphemy Challenge Coda - Reading Dawkins and Polkinghorne) People who are educated in science are often indoctrinated into a particular scientific school of philosophy without realizing it. This leads scientists to make philosophical statements that are as unfounded in actual scientific data as fundamentalist statements about science that are unfounded in the Biblical witness.

Uncritical training in science can also lead to a scientific over-scrutiny of everything. For instance, the creed. In my reading, I can see nothing there that can be scientifically tested. The creed is poetry - a love song to God. It talks in purely philosophical terms about how the church has come to know God. When we recite the creed, we are not stating a set of scientific propositions, we are engaging in an artistic endeavor. Many liturgists now suggest that the creed be sung, so that we get the feeling for this - otherwise, it begins to sound like an orthodox "Pledge of Allegiance."

We have to find a balance. Science is not the only valid epistemology - neither is religion. The two can be complimentary, even if sometimes their intersections are not seamless.

David+

Further Reading:

"Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense" (N.T. Wright)

"Belief in God in an Age of Science" (John Polkinghorne)

"Earthdance: Living Systems in Evolution" (Elisabet Sahtouris)

Anglican, Bible, Christianity, dawkins, Episcopal, evolution, fundamentalism, literalism, polkinghorne, Religion, sahtouris, science

2009 Resolution

A resolution for 2009 - to get back on track with my blogging! I hope to make sure that both ATP and Ayia Iluvatar are fed once a week! Poor blogs, you've been so neglected.....