Article: Religion and Science

Author's Preface: This is an article intended to argue for the complementarity of religion and science. The first couple of paragraphs may seem deceptively familiar, but I believe I may have managed to take the argument to new levels, particularly with my analysis of what "proper understanding" means. I am hopeful that it might encourage a discussion of some of the issues which are involved.Religion and ScienceThe religion vs. evolution debate has broken out once again, and certain groups are trying to get their religious views into high school classrooms — this time in the thinly-veiled form of "intelligent design," a broad tent where young earth creationists, old earth creationists, and people who simply prefer to remain more abstract can join together in common cause. In an online discussion devoted to the issue, one individual said that he couldn't really understand what the controversy was about. He argued that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, exists outside of the world He creates, and expects us to believe in Him through faith alone, then surely He would not have left any traces in His creation which would provide an empirical alternative to that faith. Viewed this way, the world discovered through science -- including evolution and the big bang -- is simply the divinely opaque means through which God created the world we now see.I agreed. Properly understood, there is no conflict between religion and science: each deals with different human needs (and for some people, philosophy may satisfy the same needs that religion serves for others). The realm of empirical knowledge belongs to science, whereas religion ministers to the need for normative guidance. The question of whether or not God exists lies beyond the realm of empirical science, and properly belongs to religion and philosophy. Many scientists (including a good number of evolutionists) are in fact religious -- they simply do not let their religious views interfere with the quest for empirical knowledge. (For one example, see the "Science and Religion" interview with Kenneth R. Miller, available at http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html.) Properly, scientists will respect these beliefs of their religious colleagues, realizing they may very well provide those colleagues with the moral guidance which makes them better scientists. The importance of moral guidance, and, more specifically, the moral courage to deal with the ever-present possibility of failure in both the existential and cognitive realms, is not to be underestimated.In the existential realm, religion properly provides the individual with the moral courage to act despite the possibility of failure, where failure can sometimes mean the possibility of actual death, and the fear of failure itself can often be experienced as such. Likewise, the fear of being mistaken -- where being mistaken may threaten our beliefs about who we are -- is at times experienced as a threat much like death itself. Here, too, there is need for moral courage, although of a somewhat different kind. Properly, religion encourages in its own way the view that while recognizing one's mistakes may be experienced prospectively as a form of death, the act itself brings a form of rebirth and self-transcendence, giving one the courage to revise one's beliefs when confronted with new evidence.However, when people attempt to mix the realms of religion and science — attempting, for example, to use science to promote a given religious or philosophic view -- in the long run, given the very nature of the relationship between religion and science, the results will be the reverse of what is intended, and may end up damaging what in fact they hold most dear. For example, a proponent of science who believes that faith in God is absurd in the age of Science may end up creating a religious backlash against science itself among those who take a different view. But properly, empirical science cannot speak of the metaphysics of that which lies beyond the empirical realm and the ontology required by its naturalistic explanations.Alternatively, those who attempt to use science to prove the existence of God will end up with a God susceptible to empirical criticism, when belief in God should be a matter of faith. A religious view rooted in science will be grounded in the shifting sands of scientific discourse, placed in constant threat of being uprooted by the newest scientific discoveries. For the better among those who initially accept this substitute for true faith, such a view will at first seem intoxicating, but will soon prove poisonous to their religious beliefs.For others, the proper religious stance becomes transformed, and the proper intellectual courage to revise one's beliefs when confronted with new evidence is transmuted into its polar opposite. Intellectual "courage" becomes the will and the power to challenge, doubt and deny any body of empirical evidence or knowledge whenever it comes into conflict with their religious or political beliefs. At this point, one of the most fundamental ethical virtues — honesty -- has itself become undermined, and with it all the virtues which would normally be encouraged and taught through the moral guidance of religion. Properly, religious leaders who understand what is at stake will oppose "empirical" faith both for the contradiction which it embodies and as the antithesis of the true faith they seek to protect and nourish.When properly understood, this unnecessary conflict between religion and science will be consigned to the oblivion it so richly deserves. Yet more could undoubtedly be done so as to avoid such misunderstandings and consequent conflicts in the future. Science has been and continues to be responsible for a great deal of humanity's material and intellectual progress. Religion is responsible for humanity's moral and spiritual guidance. The roles they serve are complementary and to a significant extent in today's world, interdependent. Religion and science each have their own inner dynamic, but religious and scientific communities share a common concern for humanity as a whole. If religion and science are to perform their proper functions in human society, they must remain separate, with their fundamental natures respected. But still there can be dialogue.Some time ago, Pope John Paul II visited with biologists to discuss evolution and then ended official Catholic Church opposition to evolutionary theory. This was a good beginning, but unfortunately there wasn't much follow-up. If a dialogue were to begin between the religious and scientific communities, one born out of mutual understanding and respect, such a dialogue could serve the interests of both communities and perhaps even the interests of humanity as a whole. As one interesting possibility, a scientist of the same denomination as a given church might occasionally make a good guest speaker, particularly if he were to discuss the role that religious belief has played in his life and work, and he were to share a few of the more interesting, recent discoveries in his particular field.In a sense, such religious scientists might serve as bidirectional ambassadors between the two communities, and would deserve honored places within both. If properly promoted, such guest speakers might help to boost church attendance, particularly if they are good speakers. And perhaps when church services are not being held, churches could make available rooms where scientists could discuss their work with the public, and even their concerns for some of the problems which currently face humanity. This could also serve as good public relations for the religious and scientific communities as a whole. I myself do not know where a dialogue between these communities would lead — this would be up to the participants. But I have little doubt that it could become quite interesting and enlightening for everyone involved.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-19-2005 07:55 PM

An interesting question...I am entirely open to different people having different foundations for their moral beliefs. For example, I have no problem with someone taking a philosophical approach to answering questions regarding ethics, or, if they are religious, having different religious views -- but I have chosen, for the most part, to tailor the message towards Christians as I believe that if our society can achieve proper tolerance for the scientific endeavor, then religious tolerance will more or less take care of itself. I personally believe that experience must inform our ethical decisions, but there are certain difficulties which face a "system" which attempts to defend certain fundamental ethical principles simply by reference to experience -- which, as I understand it, would be what is required for empiricism to arrive at fundamental ethical principles by which to guide actions.An Empirical Justification for Honesty?To see the particular problem which is involved, I would recommend just considering for the moment the question of whether one should be honest. Can one justify the virtue of honesty simply by empirical means? Well, what would such justification consist of -- within an empirical framework? Whether or not being honest (or keeping one's word) is practical, perhaps? Whether or not honesty achieves one's goals? A garden-variety criminal may very well have little problem with this sort of approach, chosing to be honest only when he believes that honesty is a practical means of achieving his ends.And of course, there is the question of "practical -- by reference to what end?" And how does one non-arbitrarily pick an end by reference to which one will judge actions or the principles which guide actions?Perhaps by reference to whether or not these ends achieve some other ends? Of course, we will need some sort of causal analysis which shows that they do in fact achieve or can serve as the means to achieving those other ends, but then we are faced with a regress, one which may either be finite or infinite. Now if it is infinite, then we have no ultimate ground for our actions. But if it is finite, then it ends in some form of ultimate value, something which is valued for its own sake, and not as the means to any other ends. But now what if someone else choses a different ultimate value? How do you prove that you have chosen the correct ultimate value and not he? And is there only one ultimate value in your ethical system, or several? If there is more than one, how do you handle conflicts between different ultimate values? These are just a few of the considerations which one would have to address to arrive at some form of philosophical or empirical approach to ethics. Which is not to say that I would recommend against it -- if this something you are interested in, by all means -- take it as far as you can go!Norms and Scientific Knowledge:But in fact there are deeper questions for someone taking a philosophical approach to justifying what might be refered to as "epistemic norms." For example, empirical science typically takes for granted (at least according to a standard approach, although there are other approaches, such as Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability -- which itself could lead to some interesting discussions, particularly since this has been a popular approach among evolutionists in the past, and may still be today) some form of the rule of simplicity, which states in one form or another, "All else being equal, if one has two explanations of the same phenomena, one should go with the simplest explanation." But how does one justify the rule of simplicity itself? Would one seek to show that this tends to achieve knowledge, even though at times it may arrive at a false set of beliefs? Would this be a causal tendency? One would necessarily be employing a form of causal reasoning in order to justify the rule of simplicity, and it wouldn't be a particularly simple form of causal reasoning -- as the rule of simplicity must be applied to all of one's empirical reasoning, no matter the context. Fortunately, in one form or another, scientists tend to (at least implicitly) take some form of the rule of simplicity for granted. But given the difficulties which evolutionary science is currently facing in our society, it is clear that there are some communities which do not simply adhere to different epistemic norms, but norms which are entirely at odds with the epistemic norms of empirical science. Once again, if you believe you can answer these problems, I would encourage you to do so -- even if it takes a lifetime, because it will certainly be worth it.Repairing a Jetliner in Flight:However, I am taking a somewhat different approach, at least within the context of the article. In essence, my approach is to acknowledge the fact that I am living in a society which is in a particular state. There are the scientific communities which persue empirical knowledge. There are religious leaders which the good majority of our citizens look to for moral guidance. I might consider trying to put together a philosophic system which addresses all the various issues which face the citizens of this society -- but chances are this would take me several lifetimes. But, assuming I get this system done (when no one at least appears to have succeeded in such a task over the past couple of millenia), there is still the problem of convincing everyone that I have all the answers. And while I am trying to arrive at those answers and convince everyone that I have those answers, our society will be moving and changing with the passage of time, moving very rapidly, perhaps towards one crisis or another. I personally doubt that I have the time or the ability to arrive at all the answers and get everyone to switch over to my philosophic system once I have it -- even assuming it is the correct philosophic system.Instead, my approach is to make what little changes are needed, perhaps simply a small course-correction with this jet in flight. To attempt a radical change in the structure of the jet is likely to end in disaster, but a small course-correction may be more than enough to avoid one.The scientific community should quite naturally value scientists who are honest, and who are able to admit when they are wrong. The good majority of clergy are more than willing to encourage this sort of honesty so long as their religious views are respected. But moreover, clergy are able to understand that if the virtue of honesty is undermined, then all ethical virtues are endangered, and this is something which they will necessarily oppose -- for they seek, in their own way, to inculcate virtue. Moreover, both communities value humanity as a whole, therefore they have something in common, and this may provide the basis for some form of cooperation which will benefit society and perhaps humanity as a whole.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-19-2005 07:03 PM

The real response (at least for the time being) to crashfrog's questions is "An Empirical Moral Guide." However, I thought I might throw out a few interesting questions for anyone interested. Not like I expect people to post their answers, unless of course they want to. But these questions might open-up a few issues and get some sort of discussion going....Here they are:1. How is the word "properly" being employed?2. How have members of religious and scientific communities viewed
one-another in the past?3. Can we expect the level of cooperation which I am suggesting from
the clergy of various religious communities?4. Is it really possible for their to exist the kind of cooperation
which I am suggesting between the two sets of communities?5. Can this cooperation actually exist without breaching the
separation between science and religion?6. What would constitute such a breach?7. How are religious members of scientific communities currently treated?8. What happens if one takes a more allegorical understanding of the
first paragraph?9. If one did take the approach suggested in (8), what would be required for the rest of the argument to work -- specifically in terms of the origins of religion?10. Am I in fact suggesting the right kind of strategy for promoting
and defending evolutionary science?11. How would abiogenesis fit into this?12. And of course, what exactly is the nature of "proper understanding"?

Understood.I have no problem with there being fundamentalists in society. Society can be made all the richer for it. But what I would oppose is having fundamentalists rise to a position of political power, for not only would this be damaging to science, but at least in my view, quite damaging to religious tolerance and much of the rest of the society that I value and would defend with my very life, if need be. That quote has been my favorite quote for the past twenty years. Too bad Thomas Jefferson didn't fully live up to it, but one of his contemporaries did quite well by it -- a fellow by the name of Thomas Paine. I hope that I may honor it and him with both my words and my actions.In truth, I have difficulty understanding how religious fundamentalists are able to put up with or cooperate with those who choose to remain more abstract, i.e., those who support "intelligent design" and claim that evolution most certainly could have taken place, and may have taken billions of years, as opposed to the ten or so thousands of years which young earth creationists normally give it, but only that at certain critical moments, God chose to get involved -- rather than created the world in accordance with a literal interpretation of Genesis. The proponents of intelligent design are in essence saying that a fully literal interpretation of the bible may not be correct, as are the old earth creationists, and as such, it would seem to me that you would find their positions anathema -- that as far you are concerned, they are no better than myself, but are full accomplices in the lies and deceit which rule this world. But through some miracle which I can't fully comprehend, you are able to cooperate with them. How you manage to do this is not really my concern.Now at a certain level, I have to admit that you are more honest than the people you chose to associate with -- they say that the world is somewhere between 5,000 and 4.5 billion years old, whereas true Fundamentalists come right out and say that the world is no older than approximately 10,000 years. That is certainly worthy of some respect: you are not going to hedge your bets and try to dissimilate simply in order to get the rest of society to accept you or to smuggle in a few of your beliefs.But now lets look for a moment at what the proponents of intelligent design are attempting to do: they wish to argue for the existence of God (a God which they believe in presumably as a matter of faith) by empirical means. This, it would seem, indicates that they do not have sufficient faith. It is also what I would refer to as empirical "faith" which I might contrast with "faith-based" science -- which in my view is what it must evolve into: In today's world, things are changing very, very quickly. Science is advancing so quickly that it is difficult for experts to keep tabs on all of the developments in their own areas of expertise, let alone areas which are closely related. In my view, this makes for uncertain times. And in my view, this makes the need for religion greater than it has been at perhaps any other time in history. With change comes uncertainty, and with so much change, it is difficult for people to know exactly where to stand, what won't per chance be pulled out from under them. They need something which they can count on, to build a view of themselves in relation to a world which is in a constant state of change. I believe religion can and does do this. But not by standing against the torrent of scientific discovery. It might succeed in a given debate, but not in the world, at least not without destroying the best within it and no doubt a great deal more.Currently (if polls are taken at face value) most americans agree that some form of "creationism" is true, and they are at least partly sympathetic towards intelligent design. At the same time, I believe the good majority of their religious leaders have studied the issue of whether or not evolution is true -- they have had to, partly for the sake of answering the questions of those members of their congregation who were troubled with the issue of Science vs. Religion, but partly for the sake of answering their own questions, because, given their ethics, they had to take a long, hard look at the issue for themselves. In addition, most religious leaders tend to be more well-educated than the majority of those in their congregations. They know that evolutionary theory is probably the most well-supported theory currently available to man. But they have as of yet to let their congregations in on this little secret. They hold back, I think, at least in part because they are afraid of how some of the members of their congregation might react.But I believe now is the time for men of courage to step forth, whether they are members of scientific communities or the leaders of religious communities. The attempt to mix religion and science will be destructive of both religion and science, but this should in no way prevent members of the two communities from coming together in common cause, for by working together, they can preserve the wall which separates religion and science and thereby protect the essence of both -- and in the process, human society itself.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-19-2005 09:56 PM

In all fairness, I should include some evidence for evolution, particularly since I claim that it is so well justified. Here are a eight links to some pretty dramatic stuff and links to their associated home pages where you can find out more...Whale Evolution/Cetacean Evolution (Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales)
Whale Evolution and Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales
from
Edward T Babinski
ScriveningsSmooth Change in the Fossil Record
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
from
Don Lindsay Archive
Don Lindsay ArchiveTransitional Fossil Species
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
from
Darwinians and Evolution
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/indexpage.htmObserved Instances of Speciation
Observed Instances of Speciation
from
The Talk.Origins Archive
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution ControversySome More Observed Speciation Events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
(Homepage given above)Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
from
Action Bioscience.Org
http://www.actionbioscience.org/The Evolution Evidence Page (homepage for website)
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.htmlThe Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
from
GCSSEPM Special Interests
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-19-2005 09:43 PM

Dear Faith,My apologies -- having to divide my attention between this and another list.You are right in that I do not intend any sort of threat. However, if religious fundamentalism were to rise into a position of political power, I doubt that many of my friends -- which include traditional Moslems, Hindu, and Buddhists -- would not be under some sort of threat.As for the few notable Deists -- they lead the American Enlightenment and were pivotal in this nation's creation. They include a good number of those who were there when the constitution was written. And by no means were the Christians of the time Fundamentalists, however much stock they may have put in the bible. Christian Fundamentalism is a far more recent phenomena -- and for this reason, I most certainly do not accept the view that this country was founded by Fundamentalists. Additionally, if the Christians of the time supported religious tolerance (and they most certainly did) it was largely because of the very difficult and hard-earned lessons learned from earlier colonial times -- when one or another religious group assumed political power within a given community. If this nation had been founded by Fundamentalists, it would have simply repeated the very same mistakes made by the early colonists.I find your regarding the proponents of intelligent design as brothers and sisters in the lord despite the differences which so clearly exist between you interesting and perhaps even encouraging. With many of those who are a part of your movement, I believe it may still be a matter of temporary convenience. However, if you can take this attitude with respect to the proponents of intelligent design, then would it not be possible to take the same attitude towards Christians who accept the vast majority of the bible, but who regard the two stories of creation, as well as the stories of the garden and Noah's flood as essentially allegorical (i.e., symbolic, but containing essential truths regarding Man and his relationship to God) as brothers and sisters as well? If so, then the distance between us may not be as great as it seems.Take care,
TimThis message has been edited by TimChase, 06-19-2005 11:52 PM

Hopping around a bit, aren't you? ;-)Good to see you!Actually, the view that ethics begins with merely practical principles might not be that far off. Likewise, it may very well be the case that many people are honest except when the perceived consequences are really bad. However, I must admit that we have been talking past one-another a bit: I was speaking of morality, not merely practical principles. In my mind at least, and in the minds of the good majority of people, there is a distinction -- although I do believe the two are related, and perhaps they are quite intimately related, as I believe you would take them to be.Like you, I don't believe in categorical imperatives. A great many people will no doubt be familiar with the old philosophic saw of the jew in the cellar, but it bears repeating, if a Nazi comes knocking and asks if there are any jews in your house (or gays, gypsies, political undesirables, etc. -- with a different patch for every different group), most ethicists would tell you that you are under no obligation to tell that Nazi the truth.But why should they or we simply stop there? Why not simply inconvenient? Slightly unpleasant? Or why not be "immoral" whenever it seems that you can get away with it and it seems likely that you have something to gain by it? Isn't this what is truly situational? Pragmatic? Practical? And if there is no distinction between criminals and ordinary people except a matter of degree, why is it that we do in fact distinguish between criminals and innocent citizens? Between moral and immoral behavior? Would it even be meaningful to speak of moral behavior?Of course, one might argue that society has found it expedient or practical to make such distinctions, and this may or may not be that far from the truth. But this is already taking things to another level -- further from personal experience -- and will face its own set of problems. We might turn to that in a bit.But assuming that individuals are responsible for arriving at their own decisions of what is practical based upon their own personal experience, then it will surely take a great time for them to arrive at a body of inductions which in any way resembles an ethical code. Could a society wait for its young to perform these inductions prior to their achieving adulthood? Could a society rely upon their having performed these inductions correctly -- at least to a sufficient extent that they could be reasonably well relied upon to enter society as productive citizens -- prior to achieving adulthood, or would it have need of moral instruction? And if there were such moral instruction -- where the moral instruction itself was purely grounded in the empirical -- would the child be able to follow? Perhaps, but perhaps not. At the very least, it would be an interesting experiment, but given the stakes, I am not sure that it is one which I would be willing to try. Actually I was speaking of ultimate values, which may or may not be abstract. But close enough -- for the time being. Besides, this is a good lead-in to the next point after this. But for the moment, I would like to focus on your use of the term "tentative axioms." I am not quite sure that I would put it this way, particularly at lower levels of induction, but it does seem apt at the level of a scientific theory, doesn't it?By tentative, I assume you mean that at least to some degree, the "axioms" are justified, that they constitute a form of knowledge, which, given all evidence currently available, we are justified in concluding are true -- although at some later point we may come across evidence which requires us to give up those claims to knowledge in favor of something else. Moreover, you are no doubt well-aware that there exists many levels of justification, that in fact justification forms a continuuem."Tentative knowledge" which we are justified in calling knowledge, but only given our current context, is called corrigible knowledge. And of course there is no need for the scare marks -- if this cannot be regarded as a form of knowledge, then nothing can be -- not even Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." (However, don't take my word for it. If you would like, I could put together a demonstration at some later point -- but the more philosophically-inclined might wish to puzzle this out for themselves -- as well as follow out the implications: it has an interesting twist -- and it is closely related to something much deeper. In truth, I must admit that I find questions related to the theory of knowledge far more interesting than those related to ethics -- but perhaps this is simply a kind of personal preference.) If we get around to Karl Popper, this may turn out to be an important point. My apologies to the sqeemish, but the next couple of examples are a bit extreme. I would almost say in bad taste -- but at this point I believe they serve an important purpose.If the simple fact that one experiences pleasure from a given activity is sufficient for deriving normative guidance, then what of the serial killer -- who derives something akin to ecstasy from torturing and killing someone, and then reliving his "precious" experiences through personal mementos? Or what of the serial rapist who does much the same? (For each, such experiences appear to constitute ultimate values of a sort, and there is quite probably nothing you could offer them which they would value more highly.) Have they received normative guidance, particularly in the sense that would be required by a human morality?Could you even begin to criticize them, given your current stand? As I understand it, you might claim that their actions cause you pain of a sort, insofar as you might experience empathy for the victims (and I most certainly think you would as I believe you are a good person in search of good answers), but would this actually constitute any sort of objective standard by which to judge their actions? Something which you might appeal to in order to rally others against their actions?To take a less extreme example, what of theft? If someone were to steal one of your possessions, would you have any sort of justification for other people to act in defense of your property? However, I believe there is a solution of sorts -- a solution which you could arrive at by means of abstraction. You could appeal to the principle of property itself -- that if someone is free to violate your property rights, then there is nothing to stop him from violating the property rights of other individuals when the opportunity arises.In a sense, every major religion has arrived at this sort of ethical reciprocity. In its positive form, we know it as the golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Other religions might however state it in essentially negative forms, such as, "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you," but the central idea is the same, and the level at which it operates -- universal.But of course, religion has been around for a very, very long time, so perhaps this shouldn't seem that suprising. And even in the case of something like Christianity, religion had a longstanding tradition behind it such that the insight could have arisen far earlier in time. Have such principles been derived by means of experience and induction? Perhaps -- but if so, the individuals who derived them in this fashion are lost to us in the mists of time.Anyway, I believe I have said my piece for the night. I am beginning to fall asleep at the keyboard. But if you would like, we can certainly deal with these issues in more detail tommorrow.Take care and good night... Tim.

Dear Faith,You wrote: Understood -- it can help us a great deal if we define our terms. As I understand it, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that the bible is the literal word of God. For people who take such a literal interpretation of the bible, there is no room for allegorical interpretations. Everything must be understood literally. So for example, if I or some clergy member argues that the creation stories of Genesis (books one and two) are essentially symbolic -- that they illustrate the relationship between God and Man, but do so in a language not of science, but in the language of poetry which speaks not to the mind, but to the soul for the purpose of spiritual transformation, a fundamentalist or young earth creationist will necessarily call me or that clergy member on it, and boldly state that we are calling God a liar. (I know that you have not done this, and I appreciate it. You may or may not think that I am right on this point, but I believe you can at least recognize my sincerity with respect to this issue.)A Fundamentalist or Young Earth Creationist will claim that if there is any discrepancy between the bible and the discoveries of science, then clearly it is science which is in error. But if one admits that the stories of Genesis, the garden, and Noah's flood are allegorical, then there is no conflict between evolutionary science and Christianity -- although there could still be conflicts between some proponents of evolutionary science -- particularly those proponents of evolutionary science who have difficulty understanding the limits of empirical science, that empirical science is no substitute for religion or philosophy, any more than religion or philosophy are a substitute for empirical science.Now I understand that there are some fairly significant differences between Christian Fundamentalism and the Evangelicism which followed. For example, there are some texts which play a fairly prominent role in the Evangelical movement which would of necessity lack any authority as far as a Fundamentalist is concerned. Likewise, there is the doctrine of the rapture, which as far as I am aware, has no basis in the bible, but was instead a fairly recent innovation. And there are undoubtedly many other differences. Unfortunately, I have some difficulty keeping track of all of the differences of doctrine (much of which is actually quite minor) between different denominations of Christianity. For example, the use of the phrase "... by faith alone" if used in the context of how one knows God might get you in trouble with Catholicism, not because of how you are using it, but because of certain other associations with doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. At some point, I might wish to plumb some of these differences if only for the sake of understanding, but my time is limited, and there is so much that I wish to learn across a good number of disciplines. For example, there are technical papers on recent discoveries in evolutionary science which I would like to be able to follow from start to end, but currently lack the expertise for really doing so. Then there are discoveries in physics and astronomy, issues related to the emergence of diseases, and various developments in politics. And it would always be a good thing to learn more about history. For the purpose of a discussion such as this, it certainly helps to use the right labels. But at the same time, I can understand the convenience of using a more familiar label which may not be entirely accurate. As for Billy Graham, although I am not as familiar with him as I might like to be, from what I have seen, he is quite honest, perhaps even too honest for his own good (i.e., such as when at a reporter's request he demonstrated in front of the Whitehouse how he had prayed with the president -- and thereby embarassed Eisenhower almost to point of never being invited back again). As far as I am able to see, he has a very good, decent soul.Likewise, while there were points upon which I disagreed with Pope John Paul II, there were times when I most certainly agreed with his actions and views. One was his suggestion of making Jeruselem into a city-state, neither under the control of Palestine nor under the control of Israel -- but I realize this may be a touchy subject for some. Another was when he excommunicated dominican theologian Matthew Fox -- who both he and I regarded as an enemy of the very essence of the Catholic Church and even of that which makes it Christian. Let Mr. Fox create his own religion, if he can, but not under the auspices of the Catholic Church and most certainly not on its dime. (Honestly, I think he would enjoy about as much success were he to try to invent a "natural language," but that is his problem, not mine.)Are you a fundamentalist by my standards? Given what I have seen, clearly not. One very important point is the degree of your civility when dealing with someone who disagrees with you on a number of issues, although perhaps not that many issues which are especially relevant to him. From what I have seen, you are quite willing to engage in dialogue -- and this is a critical issue which a great many people who are not Fundamentalists have a problem with -- they will assume that those who disagree with them on one issue or another are necessarily the enemy, and will seek to win an argument by any means necessary -- rather than view a dialogue as essentially a cooperative affair between equals for the joint purpose of discovery, whatever the differences of opinion. So certainly on this point, we have something very important in common. Or at the very least, so it seems. But at the same time, I think it is understandable if we both have some reservations.However, despite the fact that we have been communicating in much the same style, there can still be some major differences of opinion on issues of importance to this discussion. For example, do you accept the Separation of Church and State? I do, and I believe it is of considerable importance not just to non-Christians, but for Christians as well. Once the Separation of Church and State has been undermined, there will exist the opportunity to use the State as a weapon in a conflict between religious sects. And while one religious sect may temporarily assume control and assume that it can remain in control, it is quite possible that in the process of erecting its means of control, it will simply be facilitating greater centralized power which will fall into the hands of another sect -- or which will be used against itself by some of its own less scrupulous members in the name of greater doctrinal purity, but for the sake of acquiring greater power. Once the Separation of Church and State is undermined, you will begin to see politicians who wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves. Such men will not be truly religious, they will not truly believe. They will be demagogues who do not respect the religious beliefs which they profess. We have in fact seen some such men earlier in the history of the United States. Two which jump readily to mind are Colonel Custer (who sought to ride his war against the native americans into the White House), and Senator Joseph McCarthy. Likewise, it should be remembered that Adolf Hitler did much to promote his image as some kind of moral idealist among the Germans.If you agree that there is a need for the Separation of Church and State -- which I see as the guardian of religious tolerance, then we have a point of agreement. If not, then we have a point for further discussion.Another point may be abiogenesis, with which I would find myself in some disagreement even among some supporters of evolution. At this point, it may seem reasonable to conclude that science cannot answer how life arose from lifelessness. However, I do not believe that it will always be that way -- they are making a good deal of progress in explaining how life could and would arise as a natural process -- and given the pace, I would expect that we will have a fairly clear idea of the general process within the next ten to fifteen years. But given the fact that we have not yet arrived at some fairly well substantiated, some people still feel that this is safe territory for a miracle. And to the extent that people become emotionally and psychologically invested in the view that science cannot answer these questions, the closer science gets to answering them, the more this will hurt those who have become so invested.I hope you don't mind, but I would like to bring in a point from one of your earlier posts which I really should have addressed then, but will have to turn to now: I can understand the desire to try to make the case for unbelievers in this fashion. But given the form in which the message is delivered, it is all too easy for the less experienced Christians to become confused and assume that the message was meant for them as well. And then we fall into the issues of a faith which attempts to ground itself in science. Moreover, this kind of approach is likely to result in a needless conflict between religion and science (particularly when someone who isn't especially concerned with the science attempts to force it into a defense of their religious beliefs), and is likely to result in many people believing that they have to choose or the other, that if, for example, they are well-educated, they can't possibly be religious, and that religion is simply a relic of the past.But it has been my own experience that there is no correlation between religious belief and intelligence. Moreover, one of my rough and ready standards for judging whether or not a given individual of intelligence is rational or not is whether they are willing to accept the theories of Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. By this standard, a great many religious individuals do quite well, whereas a great many atheists who are presumably dedicated to reason do quite poorly. Given this context, the creation of an unnecessary conflict between religion and science is clearly a disservice to both. But by being both religious and genuinely interested in science (if such is the case), you can show that there is no conflict between religion and science.However, this still leaves open the question of bringing people to God -- something which I believe I owe you inasmuch as I have argued that one should not (mis-)use science for that purpose. Here are the steps that I would recommend:1. Teach by example. Try to the best of your ability to live up to the beliefs and ethics which you profess, and in the process you will come to have a deeper understanding of them.
2. Be open to establishing friendships with those who do not necessarily agree with you.
3. Be willing to engage in dialogue, for it is through dialogue that you will discover what a person really believes and why they believe it. Moreover, the more someone opens up to you, the better you will understand the personal issues which they face.
4. Once you have a clear understanding of the ethics which guide you and a clear understanding of the personal issues which they face, you will be in a better position to offer them gentle guidance in dealing with those issues, and thereby be able to demonstrate the relevance of your religious beiefs in their lives. The rest should proceed quite naturally.Take care,
TimThis message has been edited by TimChase, 06-20-2005 06:36 PM

I would say that religion at its worse is no worse that human nature at its worse whether or not religion is specifically involved -- religion provides a conceptual framework of sorts through which to view the world, much like a political ideology, such as classical liberalism, Nazism, or Marxism. For a quick aside, I would say, however, that in contrast to a political ideology, the guidance provided has typically withstood the test of experience for a great many of individuals over a good number of generations, although to some extent, this is no doubt due to its ability to adapt to new contexts. And of course, other elements may very well be involved.Classical liberalism (and likewise, modern liberalism) are essentially open frameworks which do not expect of their adherents the kind of total dedication which prevents their adherents from making use of alternative frameworks when those frameworks are more appropriate. Nazism and Marxism, on the otherhand, do. So does any cult which requires total allegiance to the exclusion of being able to see any other point of view.I will briefly list a few of the qualities which I have found in cult-like organizations -- or to be more precise -- while simply analyzing a response from an individual on another list. (Note: this is by no means meant to be conclusive -- just consider them signs to look out for.)1. An inability to even consider or look at a viewpoint which differs from one's own.Examples of this would include the kind of hold which ideologies such as Marxism and Nazism have held upon their followers in the past -- there is only one framework that the individual may be permitted to view the world through, and anything which cannot be easily integrated with that viewpoint must be dismissed outofhand. Such an approach is usually inculcated by leaders which wish to have followers with unquestioning obedience, and is typically quite prevailent among cults -- which also tend to isolate followers from family and friends who are not a part of the movement.2. A strong us vs. them type mentality.3. A tendency to dismiss any science out-of-hand which comes into conflict with one's ideological beliefs.4. The tendency to use appeal to emotion or ad hominem attacks when faced with an inanswerable rational argument.5. A tendency to see grand conspiracies everywhere -- but particularly certain powers that be -- which hide the true nature of reality from everyone except those who agree with you.6. The twin stigmatas of feelings of victimization and persecution.One example of this would include the Germans felt this after World War I -- given the literature which bread anti-Semitism, they felt victimized by the Jews. Given the economic burdens imposed upon them by the victorious side, they felt persecuted by the West. Given the twin stigmatas of injustice, they felt justified in acting unjustly towards others -- in the name of a higher cause, which in this case was a Greater Germany. Similar patterns occur at many points in history, with the Serbian-Croatian war being one of the most recent. Similarly, some cults (e.g., Moonies and Hari Krishnas) use such stigmatas and transcendant causes to justify lies told to those who are -- in their view -- unwittingly in league with the forces of evil and darkness.Twentieth Century TotalitarianismAs no doubt many religious and nonreligious people on this list are well aware, in the past century, totalitarianism killed over 100 million people -- if we just consider the people who were not casualties of war from only three countries:Nazi Germany: 11 million (6 m jews and 5 m gentile)
Stalinist Russia: 30 million
Maoist China: 60 millionAnd of course there were a great many other countries where genocide took place, particularly in parts of Asia and Africa. In some cases, the ideologies which lead to such genocides were secular. For example, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China (although no doubt they took a number of lessons from religion in one way or another -- twisted, perhaps, in order to create unquestioning obedience). In other cases, they represented revolts against modernity (e.g., Nazi Germany -- with its interest in the occult and in the creation of an Aryan religion grounded in some mythical past; Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge -- although one should remember that their leaders studied existentialist philosophy in France; Islamic Fundamentalism; and Shinto Nationalism in Japan).Religion at its worse is no doubt quite bad. Yet the same may be said of secular philosophies at their worse. And one thing which traditional religions have going for them (as opposed to some recently created cult or political-philosophic ideology) is the fact that they have stood the test of time and typically evolved into something which is fairly compatible with modern society.A Secular Foundation for Morality This may very well be the case. However, there are other qualities which you might wish to consider as well: authenticity, rationality, courage, and integrity. Interestingly, the more we add to the list of such aspects, the more relationships we see between them.In any case, I would not argue that religion is the only thing which one may look to for the source of ethics. As I stated in the first paragraph, albeit in parentheses: This more secular view of a possible foundation for ethics would fall into that category -- or it could be shared in common by religious and non-religious alike. Such a foundation may be sufficient for some. Others might require a foundation which is itself grounded in their religious beliefs. Still others might choose to ask why these qualities and not others? And, what specifically do we mean when we speak of these qualities? Can one justify them in terms of something else which is more fundamental, or in the case of a disagreement, do people simply have to go their separate ways? These qualities are fairly abstract, much like "liberty" itself. And with this in mind, it is perhaps worth recalling something once said by Abraham Lincoln: For example, in caste-based societies, fairness may be conceived in quite a different way. And in some societies, the concept of rationality may not be something which one can simply take for granted. It would appear, for example, that Descartes understanding of rationality differed quite significantly from our modern day conception of it, and that even among our contemporaries, there can be quite significant controversies regarding its meaning.A foundation for ethics? Quite possibly, and quite possibly enough for the individual who understands what he himself means. One possibility would be to argue that they are somehow known intuitively, and that this form of intuition is something which is somehow shared by all individuals. In this way, one might seek a universal foundation for human ethics. Yet justifying such an intuition within a philosophic framework might prove nearly as difficult as attempting to justify faith.In any case, I would have people remember that, for example, when asked whether they believed in God, in one recent poll, only two percent of the Americans that were surveyed responded in the negative. But by the same token, sixty-one percent believed that religious leaders should not try to influence government decisions.AP Poll: Religion Key in American Lives
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Brea...Though it may be difficult for some members of the evolutionary science community to admit, defending evolutionary science within a society which is so decidedly religious may very well require us to come to terms in some fashion with those who are religious. However, in my view, this will require little of members of either the scientific or religious communites beyond giving up the fear of the Other and learning how to deal with each other as equals.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-20-2005 11:43 PM

Paul,I would have to agree with your sense of ambivilence regarding religion -- it can reinforce the worst, as can other ideologies, but religion will sometimes act a larger scale. However, in a country where there exists a wall of separation between church and state, and where there are a fair number of denominations, I believe this power is typically quite diminished. I am not talking about allocating morality to the province of religion -- that might put a few too many philosophy professors out of work, for one thing, and just think about the economic reprocussions that might have...Seriously, each individual must ultimately choose the ethics which they will follow. For the good majority of our citizens, this ethics will be of a religious nature -- no matter what we may choose to do or say. But each individual is free to choose their own moral guide, whatever that may be. For example, if you are a baptist scientist, you have no reason to accept the moral authority of the pope. And even if you are a catholic scientist, you have every much reason to be able to disagree with him as president Kennedy did. In essence, I am not asking you or anyone to grant any more moral authority to religious leaders than they already have.But if I were a member of a scientific community sending a scientist to meet with a Catholic organization or deliver a good will speech, I would probably pick a Catholic scientist. And the same would hold true of any other denomination. Moreover, such scientists should be free at the very least -- as they already are -- to express their faith in a religious context (but preferably without any kind of social stigma -- which may or may not be the case), and doing so would also be a measure of good will. (And of course, similar to yourself, I would argue that we -- simply as citizens of a nation -- should always be on the lookout for demagogues, no matter what pulpit they may choose to stand behind.)What I would argue, however, is that even between people who disagree, it should be possible to have dialogue. But in this case, what I am suggesting is maintaining a low level of dialogue between scientists of a given denomenation and the denomonation itself at a grassroots level, if there is sufficient interest on both sides. I think there might be. Under such conditions, it should be possible to maintain a certain level of mutual respect and trust, and for some degree of cooperation which would be of benefit to the parties involved. And certainly at the very least, communication is rarely a bad thing, don't you think?In any case, I have noticed a fair amount of good will on the parts of churches towards evolutionary science already:An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
Page not found - University of Wisconsin Oshkosh University of Wisconsin OshkoshThis project was going well before I wrote my article, but I wasn't aware of it until afterwards. Yet when I saw the project, it made all the sense in the world. Over 4000 clergy from a good number of denominations (many of which are quite conservative) have "stood up" (at least online) and said that they see no conflict between evolution and Christianity, and moreover, that they regard evolution as a foundational truth of modern science. That is a great deal of goodwill. But with a little encouragement (such as what my article is intended for), they may be willing to do a bit more. Something to consider.

I whole-heartedly agree with virtually everything you have to say.As I said: I may not know the particulars in a given state as to who is organizing the opposition to bringing intelligent design into the classrooms, but it wouldn't suprise me in the least if it is in a large percentage of the cases churches which understand what is at stake -- as they realize it is not just a matter of the separation of Church and Science, but a separation of Church and State, and that without this separation, they will become vulnerable to any religious movement with political ambitions. Moreover, I have been seeing letters to the editor written by clergy in defense of evolution. Their interests coincide with ours. Many of them realize this. It is time that we realize it as well.One small thing which could be done quite easily would be for the major evolution websites to display prominently the link which I have given above on their main webpage. However, I have had some difficulty getting through to them -- perhaps a few of you know of people who are better connected. I would include a message of the form,"If you are religious and support evolution, you may wish to see whether clergy at your church would be interested in signing the following document."Unless there is a good reason for not doing so, at the very least, we should be supporting our supporters.And we should look for ways of working with them which extend beyond the web.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-21-2005 02:08 PM

Understood.If I may, I would like to bring in a somewhat analogous situation...There have been geniuses in the past, some even within this last century (although I would certainly hesitate to bring up their names), people whose intelligence illuminated large parts of our world. However, because of the fact that they were so brilliant, they oftentimes became surrounded by people who -- after a while -- were unable to disagree with them and could only tell them how brilliant they were. In such a context, particularly with a mind capable of making connections between seemingly distant elements of the world, it is easy for them to become disconnected from the dialogue of human discourse. In contrast to the synchophants which geniuses would end up being surrounded by as their own light begins to fade, a good friend would be there to insure that the genius remains connected to the world.If you desire to help someone make the right choices, there is oftentimes no better way to begin than by being their good friend.Without dialogue, you give up nearly all influence which you might otherwise have.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-21-2005 03:32 PM

I do understand that there is more which the scientific communities could be doing in the defense of both the separation of Church and Science and the separation of Church and State.If you will notice, I made a great deal of use of the term "properly" in my paper.Religion and Science:
Message 1This was no accident -- and undoubtedly a number of people picked up on this, quite possibly including yourself.By using the term "properly," I was able to describe the way things ought to be while making it sound as if I was describing the way that things are. Oftentimes there is very little divergence between the two. For example, I believe that most clergy teach some form of the intellectual courage which I describe -- otherwise divorce would be far more prevailent than it already is. Moreover, when I had religious people read the piece, it seemed quite familiar to them.But in describing how things ought to be, I was also describing how people ought to act. Now if I had said that, "this is what they ought to do," people could have reacted simply by telling me, "Who are you to tell us what to do?!" But by selecting the language which I used, I was already describing them at their best.Nevertheless, at some point, I needed to make it clear that there is a normative force behind the document. I chose to make it apparent after I had already made evident that there is already a great deal at stake for the clergy who care. But the normativity of the vision exists whereever the term "properly" is used, and of course, elsewhere. Essentially, a subtle form of encouragement to do what is right by showing things the way they ought to be.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-21-2005 04:56 PM

Understood.Clearly there are other potential conflicts, and in fact I say as much. I recognize the fact that some churches are less enlightened with respect to some of the problems facing humanity today. But if there is dialogue, I believe it may be possible to overcome them. In truth, the problems of overpopulation and the ecology, and most especially the problem of emerging epidemics were on my mind as well, and I know that many of you share these concerns. They would be reasons for a continuing dialogue. But where the dialogue which I have proposed goes will ultimately be decided by the participants, not me.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-21-2005 06:59 PM

I might try to be a tad bit more diplomatic, but this is the general idea.Honestly, I think what may be required is a careful balance of the qualities of authenticity and diplomacy. Additionally, I would strongly recommend remembering that clergy are typically fairly well educated. This is why they are willing to do this: And I would always recommend attempting to keep the lines of communication open even in the face of disagreement, and likewise, leaving those who you deal with the room to maneuver so that they can do the same. The best way to approach others is with mutual respect and a recognition of shared values.Anyway, now that I think people are a little more familiar with the article, I would like to try and limit myself to one or two smaller posts each day for the next few days at least, and in this way, leave others the chance to express their views.And I should probably introduce myself a bit, so here it goes. While I tend to put more trust in traditional religions, I myself am not traditionally religious. I was a philosophy major, and essentially a neo-Aristotelian. My focus in philosophy was in knowledge theory. My views concerning God are essentially quasi-Spinozist, like Einstein's, and I believe that the highest form of worship one can offer such a God is to exercise one's capacity for reason. However, I have no interest in converting anyone to my religious views, and I doubt that I would have much success if I tried. Besides, it isn't needed.