Peter Kazmaier

C. John Sommerville, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Florida, has written an engaging book entitled Religious Ideas for Secular Universities. As he looked back on fifty years of university life as both a student and a professor, he wondered at how much the mission and role of the university had changed in that time period.

“I thought I was finally able to see our universities the way American society does, as a good way of preparing us for our jobs, but not where we look to answers for our important questions.” [Page 3]

Sommerville amplifies this view on page 7.

“It seems that some time in the 1980’s accountancy became the queen of sciences. Universities are about money in a whole new way. They are now measured in terms of money – the size of their endowments, how much they can charge for tuition, and the return on that investment in the starting salaries of new graduates.”

Sommerville’s views lead to three questions:

1. Are universities becoming corporations?
2. If they are, is this a good or a bad thing?
3. If it is a bad thing, what can be done to reverse this trend? (continue reading…)

I’m reading a thought-provoking book by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary entitled The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul. In Chapter 4, as part of a thoroughly referenced review of neuroscientist’s theories about Religious, Spiritual, amd Mystical Experiences (RSMEs) the authors discuss the interesting case of Michael Persinger’s “God Helmet.” (continue reading…)

Orson Scott Card , known for the classic Science Fiction novel Ender’s Game , gave an excellent interview to Moira Allen on religion in Science Fiction and Fantasy. To my mind Card’s responses, although they were given some time ago, continue to be the best expose on this subject. Here are a few of his quotes from the interview (shown in bold blue) and some of my comments to go with them: (continue reading…)

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has released a 70 page article by a committee of 15 authors, chaired by Francisco J. Ayala, entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism . This article, published in 2008, is far too long for me to discuss in one Blog, so I propose to discuss it topically over several shorter submissions.

First of all this article is written for the non-science practitioner since the text consists of one long list of assertions with little or no critical review of the actual data. I presume the authors chose this route to keep the discussion simple, however it does mean that very complex topics are summarized for the reader based on the authors’ point of view and there is no possibility to examine the data to see how it speaks to the assertions presented.

In this post, I would like to focus on pages 12-15 where Ayala et al. quotes many sources to make the point "acceptance of evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith." He argues that there is no inherent conflict between religious faith and evolution and underlines the complementarity of science and religion. The condescending tone of this discussion aside, I agree with this complementarity statement with some qualifications.

One problem lies in the definitions. If everyone is using the same definition for "evolution" and for "faith" then well and good, but often in these kinds of discussions that is not the case. For example, if evolution is defined in "change in organisms over time" then virtually everyone would can accept that evolution occurs since virtually everyone acknowledges pigmentation changes in the races, development of infectious immunity and similar examples. To avoid this confusion, I prefer the term Darwinism (see my blog entitled Tanks, Testing and Terminology ) to refer to what Ayala means by evolution.

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments. [1995 official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers]

This problem of definitions also occurs in the quotes of various clerics, rabbis, and theistic evolutionists cited by Ayala et al. Virtually all Christians subscribe to the Apostles’ Creed. The first line of the Apostles’ Creed states: I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. Given the Apostles’ Creed, it takes a good deal of discussion to understand what people mean when they say that they say "evolution is compatible with religious faith." Given the Apostles’ Creed it is difficult to reconcile Maker of heaven and earth with "unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable" (which by the way are untestable statements – how do I prove a process is unsupervised?).

Now let me turn to what I find most interesting in Ayala’s [I'm going to say Ayala when I mean Ayala et al.] discussion. He has made the point that if the evidence for evolution is there, then it is possible for Christians to accommodate this evidence and maintain their faith. What Ayala does not do is turn this statement around.

Ayala brought Christians and other Theists (some 40% of the science population as I recall) into the discussion. What about the other 60%? Can an Atheist (perhaps more properly a Materialist or Philosophical Naturalist) accommodate empirical evidence contrary to Darwinism with their world view?

I think the answer is an emphatic "no!" As Dawkins has pointed out "Evolution makes Atheism reasonable." If Ayala is going to open the faith versus evolution question at all, he ought to point out that while scientists that are Theists can accommodate change over time with their beliefs, Atheists on the other hand would have their whole world view severely challenged by empirical evidence that pointed to the actions of a Creator. I believe this is an important point because one needs to identify potential bias in the stakeholders of these discussions. Everyone has biases. Atheist biases are very strongly on the side of a Darwinist explanation.

In the end, both Atheists and Theists ought to find common ground by agreeing that we are seeking the truth. We will probably differ on how we weight the evidence. I think everyone no matter what their world view, if they are honest, will acknowledge there is some difficulty in integrating all of the evidence that confronts them. It would be helpful if we could discuss our differences without rancor or vituperation.

So why is this such a contentious issue? I think Atheists such as Dawkins (and Ayala echoes the same sentiments on p37-39) see Intelligent Design as a way of introducing religion into the classroom [I do not agree with this perspective and believe it to be a prejudice]. However, listening to Dawkins speak, he also believes that understanding unguided Darwinism as an explanation for the origin of life in general and Homo sapiens in particular, is also a vehicle for destroying people’s religious beliefs (which Dawkins regards as a good thing). And so I think, at its core, this is really a contest about who gets to proselytize in the public school system (Atheists or Theists) and so it is this question, rather than science, that makes tensions run very high.

I have much more to say on Ayala’s manuscript, but overall I found it rather one-sided and patronizing. He underestimates the understanding of science by most of his audience, over simplifies the arguments of his opponents and puts words in their mouths rather than let them speak for themselves. If he really wanted to model the scientific method, he would avoid so many categorical statements affirming evolution. Furthermore, rather than enumerating data to support evolution, he ought to make an honest, vigorous attempt to disprove the theory (that’s what we as scientists are supposed to do) and also openly acknowledge difficulties and things that are hard to explain, given our current knowledge. Then the reader could make up his own mind on the evidence and learn something about how science works at the same time.

Thanks for reading,

~Peter

Judging by the comments of Stephen Weinburg and the more recent additions to this body of writing by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris, there are many modern writers who would like to orchestrate and/or hasten ‘The End of Religion’. However Cavey’s book does not have the same end in mind as the other five who foresee a brave new world based on a ‘religion-free materialism’. Cavey has written two versions of ‘The End of Religion’, one by Agora Imprints and a longer one by NavPress. I have read both and I will discuss both. So what does Cavey mean by ‘The End of Religion?’ (continue reading…)

A friend of mine, Gregg wrote an interesting post lamenting how some clergy, while maintaining their office as a shepherd of other Christians in their church make statements that undermine and even dismiss not only teachings that have been held in common by Christian since Christ’s coming, but the writings behind the teaching themselves. I believe each person has a right to look at the evidence, weigh it, and then reach their own conclusion. When I have done that, this has led me on a course to being a Christian. What I cannot understand is clergy and other persons of influence in the religious community who apparently have come to the personal conclusion that Jesus is not who he said he is, who then nevertheless despite their aggressive agnosticism continue to hold office, continue to draw salaries, continue to influence other Christians who look to them for leadership while all the time speaking to these personal beliefs which repudiate the essence of Christianity. They are waging intellectual war against Christ-Followers from the inside. To me this seems intellectually dishonest. (continue reading…)

In 1633 Galileo was tried for heresy for publishing a book which argued against Aristotelian Geocentricity and for Heliocentricity (i.e. the Copernican theory that the sun is the central body of the solar system and the all planets revolve around the sun).

In a previous post, I investigated the limitations of scientific inquiry . There I explored how science’s central focus on experimentation inherently limits the kinds of questions that are accessible to scientific investigation. Now I would like to turn to another kind of limitation – one imposed on science by the environment in which scientific investigations are conducted. Galileo’s heresy trial represented a suppression of free inquiry and free expression, so essential to advancement in science (and other endeavors also). I would like to begin by looking at the power structure and motivations for scientific interference in our society today. It is therefore important to ask: in 2008 who, if any, are the "inquisitors" and who are the "Galileos?" (continue reading…)

Dr. Armand Nicholi, Jr. is an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. He has taught a course on Freud and Lewis at Harvard College and the Harvard Medical School for more than 25 years.

In this book he compares the lives and thoughts of these two thinkers. He sets the stage for a debate on topics as diverse as God, love, sex, the meaning of life, and death.

The comparison is compelling because both grew up with a superficial religious upbringing and then became atheists. However from there their paths diverged dramatically. (continue reading…)

In a previous post, I quoted Charles Lewis of the National Post:

“So why bother to grasp it if it is beyond human reason? What possible good can it do to believe in this miracle, let alone in any other religious belief? It is a question asked by secular societies that more and more see religion as divisive, superstitious and an elaborate but irrational story for children.”

The question of religion being divisive is an important question since it represents one of the main attacks on religion that have been made by Hitchens-Harris-Dawkins-Dennett.

I would like to then ask three questions:

1. Is religion divisive?
2. If religion is divisive, what are the root causes of the division?
3. Is division of belief or conviction a good or a bad thing? (continue reading…)

Charles Lewis wrote an article in the National Post discussing belief and disbelief in Christ’s virgin birth, an important element in the Gospel’s account of the birth of Christ.

This is an interesting article and I recommend that my readers examine it, but one paragraph in particular caught my eye:

“So why bother to grasp it if it is beyond human reason? What possible good can it do to believe in this miracle, let alone in any other religious belief? It is a question asked by secular societies that more and more see religion as divisive, superstitious and an elaborate but irrational story for children.”

So what makes people believe in miracles? Is the belief in miracles irrational? (continue reading…)