Various Thoughts, Faux Pas, and Improprieties

While still writing more on faith and science (more on Monday hopefully), I thought I would bring you up to speed on other things. Obviously, as evidenced by the pictures in my last post, daughter #3 was born – she’s quite easy going compared to the first two as newborns. Still that doesn’t stop me from spending a lot of time awake at 2 and 3 a.m. The more this occurs the more I am reminded for the third time in my life that being awake at such a time is very unnatural. Possibly demonic. Still the child needs to eat and I cannot deny her the opportunity. Why doesn’t Beth get up you may ask? Well, for starters, Beth carried our child and birthed her. I think she’s been through enough, don’t you? The least I can do is feed Ella Gray now that she’s here. Besides, I like her. I am back in the church office on Monday. Sadly, though I was able to leave the church alone for a week, the church could not do that for me. Alas, such is the life of ministry.

Keeping me occupied at 2 a.m. feedings is my new Blackberry Tour 9630 Smartphone. I had a Verizon VX6900 for almost two years and I wore that puppy out so bad that it basically refused to work anymore. In the past, I have used Palm and Windows Mobile platforms, resisting the urge the jump on the Blackberry bandwagon. Why? The same reason I refuse to join Facebook. But I must say this phone is the best I’ve ever owned. I am in love with a machine. So I prop up the child and bottle with one hand and surf the web with the other. At first I was watching TV but there is very little on to watch at that time. I did see a riveting documentary on UFOs. It creeped me out a little and so I turned on a light…

 

I’ve told you in the past that I spend a good amount of time thinking about strange (though often insignificant) questions. These questions can occupy me for weeks on end. I don’t tell my wife about these questions simply because I want  her to stay married to me. And discussing them would certainly run her off. My first strange question is one that any self-respecting religious person should ask themselves: would I make a good cult leader? After mulling over this for several days, my answer is mostly definitely yes. I personally believe I have what it takes to embarrass God.

 The second mental riddle is a little more complex. DNA consists of four bases that are abbreviated A, G, T, and C. I begin to think that all of my daughters have at least one (if not two) of these letters as their intials: ARN, CGN, EGN. I begin to think: would it be cool if I could work the initial “T” into a fourth child’s name? Then all DNA four bases would be represented in my children’s names. How cool would that be? Now that’s genetic coding, my friend! So, I began to make a mental list of male and female names that could complete the “sequence.” I doubt seriously that Beth is going to allow me to complete my own personal family of nucleotides. My only hope is that next time we’ll have twins and my dream of naming them Bonnie and Clyde will come true…

Reconciling Faith and Science: The “Humanness” of Science, Part 3

More examples of the “humanness” of scientific inquiry…

When Albert Einstein created the General Theory of Relativity, he didn’t like what he discovered. His theory predicted that the universe was slowly expanding or contracting – the universe was moving, one way or the other. At the time, that was a completely unconventional idea. So much so, that Einstein did something very human: the thought that the universe may not be uniform or constant was so repulsive to him that he inserted a “fudge factor”  – a variable constant, retrofitted to keep the universe in a state of eternal equilibrium. Einstein’s theory told him what he didn’t want to accept…so he changed the formula to adapt to his beliefs.

In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble (Hubble telescope) further confirmed that the universe was in fact expanding. So, Einstein actually took a trip to see Hubble’s data with his own eyes. Both men believed in a static universe – but eventually conceded the point. The universe came into existence sometime in the past. Into the thirties and forties, scientists continued to rail against the implications of Hubble’s discovery. In 1938, when asked about the issue, chemist Walter Nerst angrily stated: “We cannot form a scientific hypothesis which contradicts the very foundations of science.”

The dissention continued through the forties, fifties, and sixties. Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington stated: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order of nature is repugnant.” Rather than accepting the expanding universe and the beginning of existence, scientists spent their time coming up with alternate theories to contradict it. In 1948, Scientists Gold, Bondi, and Hoyle came up with the Steady State model while other scientists adhered to the “oscillating-universe” model. Both models stated that the universe had no starting point and remained in a state of equilibrium – Newtonian physics was safe. But eventually in 1965, two scientists in the Bell Telephone Lab provided data to support the “big bang”: cosmic microwave background radiation – a left over relic from the origins of the universe. 

 By the 1990s, based on mathematical computation and computer-generated models, most astrophysicists confidently stated that all solar systems in the universe behave in the same way as ours. In 1995, Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz discovered a planet with similar characteristics to Jupiter orbiting a star in the constellation Pegasus. Everyone assumed this planet with similar physical properties would behave just like Jupiter does in relation to our Sun. They were very surprised to learn that the planet behaved nothing like Jupiter. It hurries around its host star every 4.2 days. It takes the earth 365 days. The planet only measured 1/8 the distance from its star that Mercury is from our Sun. So, it was closer and faster. About these differences, Mayor said, “It was very strange to consider the attitude of people facing something completely in disagreement with theory…some astronomers said things like ‘Oh, this is not a planet because you cannot form Jupiter-like planets close to their stars.’” But obviously, you can. 

Once again, like last week – am I making a case against science? No. I like science. I’m making a case for the very real “humanness” of any academic discipline. Every discipline has stories like these in its history. Yet, though religious ones are paraded for a wide audience, you have probably never heard about these. Next post, I’ll explain why we feel that “humanness” in science is unacceptable.

Ella Gray Is Here!

Small but spunky: 5lbs. 15oz., 19 inches. Gray is a family name on my father’s side…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patiently waiting…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I’m not so sure about this…”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow. That was painful…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tired but happy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A house full of women!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CG with EG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AG with EG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On our way home…

 

 

 

 

It’s good to be a husband and father. 

Reconciling Faith and Science: The “Humanness” of Science, Part 2

If you remember from my last post, we are attempting to see that our humanness affects everything we do. Science is a human endeavor and all humans bring their personal beliefs to bear on their work. Until we see that religion and science are human enterprises, then we are incapable of determining if they fit together or not. Last post we looked at historical examples: Kepler, Newton, etc. You may think that modern science (with the separation between faith and science fully pronounced) is much more objective. Actually, it’s gotten worse! 

For example, listen to some of the following quotes for or against evolutionary theory (emphasis mine). Now, remember – we aren’t talking about the issue of evolution per se; we’re talking about the human reactions (positive and negative) that evolution evokes from different scientists:

Lynn Margulis (University of Massachusetts) calls neo-Darwinists “a minor twentieth century religious sect…they wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin…neo-Darwinism is in a complete funk.”

Biologist Ed Wilson (Harvard): “The final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come from its capacity to explain traditional religion…theology is not likely to survive…”

Late astrophysicist Robert Jastrow (NASA, Princeton): “At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance…and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Biologist Francis Collins (Human Genome Project): “Admittedly we cannot precisely outline the order of the steps that lead to [biological organization]. We may never be able to do so, because the host organisms of many predecessors are lost to history. Yet Darwinism predicts that plausible intermediate steps must have existed, and some have indeed already been found.”

 Here are some modern examples of “humanness” in scientific experiments:

 By the late 1800s, physicists knew that light traveled as a wave, but didn’t know the medium through which it travelled. The greatest physicist of that time, James Clerk Maxwell stated that the answer was “ether”: “…there can be no doubt that…space is not empty but is occupied by [ether], which is certainly the largest and probably most uniform body of which we have knowledge.” Not only did Maxwell declare ether’s existence, he precisely calculated its density and coefficient of rigidity. But in 1887, Michelson and Morely conducted an experiment that showed that ether did not exist in space. For roughly 25 years, other scientists along with Maxwell had been calculating the density of something that didn’t exist.

 In 1952, University of Chicago’s Stanley Miller attempted to create the primordial environment from which the origins of life sprang. He combined the chemicals he believed to have been present at the beginning of life. With a little perseverance, Miller hoped to produce amino acids – the building blocks of life. And that’s exactly what he did – the scientific community rejoiced when Miller was able to detect various amino acids in his experiment. However, in hopes of producing them, Miller jiggled the apparatus around to create more interaction among the chemicals.

More examples next post…

Who’s Most Thankful for Brett Favre Right Now?

Michael Vick.

Reconciling Faith and Science: The “Humanness” of Science, Part 1

Here are some historical examples of the “humanness” of science: where human beliefs and paradigms directly affected scientific inquiry:

Copernicus, in support of his proof for the heliocentric theory, cited Hermes Trismegistus (an occultist from ancient times whose writings found popular appeal in the Rennaisance occult revival) who worshipped the Sun as the essence of God. Copernicus derived his initial understanding of the Sun as the center of the universe from occult writings of his time. He then moved forward to test that hypothesis on the assumption that his occult/religious beliefs were correct.

Johannes Kepler, one of the heroes of the scientific revolution, believed the universe was modeled on the Trinity: “For in the act of making, God…arranged the adorable image of the Trinity. The Sun represents the Father. The outer ring of the cosmos represents Christ. The space between planetary bodies is the Holy Spirit.” Though it’s no longer portrayed that way, Kepler’s scientific reasoning was founded on his theology. He also made horoscopes to predict the future and believed that all the planets made musical harmonies.

Isaac Newton was a devout alchemist – he wrote over a million words on alchemy (most only exist in manuscript form). Part of this writing involved corresponding with John Locke (the political philosopher and British empiricist) and Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry). Newton adapted his alchemical beliefs in an all-pervasive force connecting the universe to his scientific work. This “universal fluid” acted upon all things on earth as well. He named the spiritual force “gravity.” He was also a chronic date setter for the return of Christ, using the Book of Revelation. Before gravity became a scientific mainstay, it was a religious belief.

The English term “electricity” was introduced by an alchemist, Jean-Baptiste von Helmont, in 1650. Helmont believed that electricity was the fluid of the universe that connected his alchemical studies to theology and science. “Electrical theologians” began to appear on the scene. Pietist Friedrich Oetinger believed electricity was the “world spirit” that energized life.

Even the beginning of evolutionary theory was not immune from religious foundations. G.F. Meier proposed that animals ascend the scale of evolutionary progress over several lives: “It is possible that animals representing the lowest class should be promoted through death into a second, from there into a third…” Charles Fourier adopted a similar “scientific” view of life: he believed that the evolution of species occurred through the Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls. In other words, the religious belief of reincarnation informed Fourier’s pre-Darwinian views of evolution.

Franz Anton Mesmer in the 1800s described an occult fluid he called “animal magnetism” that flowed through everything we see and connected our bodies, the earth, and the planets together. Obstruction of the flow of animal magnetism is the cause of human disease. From this concept, the secular disciplines of hypnotism, reflexology, massage, and chiropractic medicine are derived.

Modern medicine is not immune to religious foundations either. A Renaissance occultist and alchemist named Paracelsus played a vital role in the development of modern medicine and anatomy. He developed the first modern theory of metabolism and provided medicine with its first functional conception of physiology. Paracelsus believed that we are spiritually connected the cosmos. Our bodies are merely a smaller version of the universe. So, by studying the zodiac, we can learn about human anatomy. Paracelsus also taught (similar to those before him) that a spiritual fluid resided in each human and that it was transferable to others. He also believed that “there are two kinds of disease, one material affecting the body, the other immaterial in the spirit…When the spirit suffers so does the body, for it manifests itself in the body.” Here, Paracelsus is accurately describing the medical profession’s dealings with psychosomatic or psychophysiological disorders. Psychotropic drugs to combat anxiety, depression, and stress-related illness are top sellers in the U.S. today. Paracelsus was describing it in the 1500s…using a religious perspective.

If you feel that I am attacking science, you have misunderstood my point. I’m not. I like science. I am merely conveying the very real subjectivity that exists in the midst of all human activity. Some people see the “humanness” of science as a point of weakness. But science is a human endeavor and all humans bring their personal beliefs to bear on their work. Until we see that religion and science are both human enterprises, then we are incapable of determining if they fit together or not. Obviously these examples are not modern ones – I wanted to show that our separation of faith and science is a post-Enlightenment phenomenon. I’ll share some modern stories and quotes with you next post.

Reconciling Faith and Science: Are They Compatible?

Based on the limited amount of research I’ve recently completed for my Sunday school class, I plan to post about the relationship between faith and science over the next two months (along with other topics). I hope the information is interesting to you and helps those struggling with this topic find some answers.

I must confess that this is new territory for me, personally. I was raised in a conservative, Southern, evangelical home. The only model I knew (at least for the origins of life) was the creationist model (before you turn your nose up at that idea, realize that presently 44% of Americans believe this way. That’s roughly half of the nation) . I took chemistry, biology, and physics in high school but I found little relevance to my faith. The conservative Christian model has often taught that science and faith are basically enemies. But eventually, I began to notice that there were a large number of scientists who embraced Christianity and had strong personal devotional lives. Of course, that’s the opposite of what I had assumed. I thought that science eradicated all faith in God for the sake of rationalism and logic. And for some scientists, that’s true. But for many, it’s not. Several surveys state otherwise. One survey found that while 80% of the general public believes in God, only 33% of scientists do. U.S. News and World Report described this information as “A Huge God Gap…” However, a similar survey in the 1920s found that 33% believed in God back then, too. Another survey including social scientists upped that number to almost 66%. Among those surveyed, biologists are least likely to believe. A recent University of Chicago survey found that 76% of doctors believe in God and 60% believe in an afterlife. If possible compatibility between faith and science did not exist, then rest assured that number would be zero.

However, my approach to science really began to change for me as I continued to study historical theology. That may sound strange to you, so let me explain. As a young adult, I assumed Christian doctrine appeared on the scene fully formed without complications. But the reality is that it took centuries to hash out the details of the faith. I also began to notice how “human” an undertaking theology was. Church history is full of people making horrible mistakes, treating each other badly, making doctrinal blunders that wouldn’t be corrected for years. People have been starting crazy cults since the inception of Christianity. Faith healers have been around that long, too. Even the “pillars” of the faith are not immune to their own humanness. John Wesley’s wife used to beat him up and throw him out of the house. John Calvin had a rival named Servetus beheaded for not towing the line in Geneva. And our culture has constantly pointed out the mistakes of runaway fringe sects, bombed abortion clinics, and the Crusades. That human element makes Christianity look “unscientific” – for many, that’s synonymous with unimportant.

Like theology I also assumed that science had emerged fully formed and placed in our high school textbooks. But as I studied historical theology, I noticed that up until the Enlightenment, science and theology were not held apart at all. In fact, scientists were also theologians, philosophers, medical experts, herbalists, and occultists of the day. The idea of holding any of these disciplines apart did not exist until recent history. What I found was that science was just as human: riddled with stories of prejudice, subjectivity, and inaccuracy - just like theology or any other area of study. Why? Because humans are involved. And no matter what is said otherwise, humans are incapable of complete objectivity. They believe. They have opinions. They have life histories. And all of these things determine much about how we approach the world.  

I know you have been told differently. We are told science is objective. Certain. Definite. Scietific naturalism teaches us that technical aspects of science are superior to all other forms of knowledge. And once science approves a theory, that theory rarely comes under fire and is never overturned. After all, there’s data, proof, evidence! But the history of science is full of the opposite: squabbling scientists believing strongly in their position despite large amounts of data to the contrary. Even when a scientific theory is overturned by new evidence, many scientists throughout history have had trouble adapting. Why? Because they are human. Somehow, we believe that though other areas of our life are riddled with the weaknesses of emotion and faith, scientific research is somehow capable of being performed in an intellectual vacuum. No outside influences affect the science lab. So, before determining the compatiblity of science and religion, I need to spend time telling you some stories – stories about the “human” element of science. Because until we can agree that our humanness affects everything we do, we won’t be able to see how faith and science are compatible. In the following two posts, I am going to challenge the paradigm you were taught in high school – that science is always an objective process and theology is not. Enjoy the next two posts about the “human side” of science…

What Constitutes “Good” Parenting?, Part 2

My last post reminded me of a couple of biblical examples that spoke volumes to me about the subject of Christian parenting.

The story of Eli and his sons is the first one (1 Samuel 2:20-36). Eli’s sons were priests and spent the majority of their time abusing their privileges in self-serving ways. No one would consider them “nice, well-mannered young men.” They were first class jerks. This passage often makes it into parenting seminars as an example of a gluttonous, lazy, and personally undisciplined father and the havoc that his lack of restraint causes. The inference is clear: Eli’s sons were horrible because Eli was a bad father. I can’t tell you the number of parents I’ve seen who, upon hearing about the inappropriate behavior of their children, are washed over with guilt for the actions of their offspring. And it doesn’t matter the age – the child could be forty years old and still the parents feel they are to blame in some way. The church reinforces those stereotypes, as if the personal humiliation isn’t enough on its own.

But here’s another biblical example we don’t talk about that much: the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 8). Do you know about his kids? They were just as bad as Eli’s – possibly worse! In fact, their injustice and willingness to take bribes is what casued the Israelites to want Saul for a king. That may explain why Samuel was so against it. Even as Saul is being appointed over Israel (12:1-4), Samuel is still carrying on about his sons still being available to judge Israel – as if they are a better choice than Saul. By all “Christianese” standards, Samuel is what a parent should be: a mighty man of God, modeling service and sacrifice to God on a daily basis. Someone to be admired and imitated. Yet, his sons reject his example, despite his efforts to influence them for the better. By chapter 12, it’s obvious that Samuel thinks a king is a bad idea – but more importantly, he’s so blind to his own children’s behavior that he actually thinks they are still qualified to govern Israel.

Okay, Sam, so what’s your point? Well, it’s essentially what I said in the earlier post. Good parenting is not about cause and effect or “if you do A, you’ll get B.” It’s not a formula. Parents have to believe that our parenting makes a difference. Otherwise, it’s an overwhelming task. But for Eli and for Samuel, regardless of personal devotion to God, the spiritual formation of any child goes beyond what even the best parents can do. Ultimately each person has to recognize the pursuit of God in their life and be willing to respond. I can do my best to create an atmosphere where the Holy Spirit can draw my children into relationship. But in the end, each child’s response is their solely their own. And that’s not a bad thing. God pursues relationship with our children regardless of our behavior, simply because that’s what he wants. And his desire for their salvation far outweighs any hopes I may have for my children. So I model my Christianity, not because it’s important for them to see it. I model it because my Christianity is important to me. And as God pursues them, one day their Christianity will be important to them as well.

What Constitutes “Good” Parenting?, Part 1

I’ve been thinking about what makes someone a good parent – or better yet, what we should consider good parenting skills. I’m finding there aren’t any hard, fast rules that determine whether your child turns out to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner or an ax murderer. And most kids end up somewhere in between anyway. A couple of books have brought this question to my attention.

The first was Freakonomics. One of the chapters attempts to determine the bearing of different parenting styles on children. What the authors find is that socio-economic status has significant bearing in a specialized way. Children in middle to upper income families do better because of the opportunities that money gives them. Intelligence has little to do with it. For example, a child who reads children’s books in his/her home is likely to do well in life. But it’s not because they read better than another child. It’s because a child whose parents have enough money to buy children’s books are also going to have enough money to buy piano lessons, art lessons, etiquette classes, a private school education, etc. Baby Einstein videos don’t do much for your kid, but a parent willing to spend the money on those videos will most likely spend that same type of money on other things to make sure their children succeed. Interesting point. But it says nothing of spiritual or character formation.

The other two books were religious. The first was George Barna’s Revolutionary Parenting. This book was pretty adamant that a particular type of parent turns out spiritual “champions” on a regular basis. The type of parenting? Evangelical and conservative. That wasn’t that surprising either – Barna is an evangelical. The point was that these parents modeled a Christian lifestyle for their children and gave them multiple chances for response. But I began to think about many of the Christians I know today…and whole lot of them were not brought up in a Christian home at all. And the more serious ones had a horrible upbringing. Maybe that’s because they actually understand the gravity of salvation since they were so far from God to begin with. Or maybe they understood the ravaging effect of sin in a more personal way. There is some truth to the idea that great sinners make great Christians. So Barna’s approach leaves out a whole lot of people.

The final book was Tony Dungy’s Quiet Strength. In the second chapter or so, Dungy talks about the exceptional example his parents provided for him. They were strong, church-attending Christians and both had higher level educational training (the holy grail of secularists). Both were teachers. By our society’s standards, that’s the one-two punch. It’s easy to talk about how great his parents must have been and that surely this was the reason for Dungy’s successful coaching career. But the last paragraph of the chapter throws a wrench in that scenario. Dungy stated that it wasn’t until years later as an adult that he made a commitment to Christ. Huh? Wait a minute. If anybody should have been a great Christian from the start it should have been him. He had Christianity and education. But it didn’t impact him as much as we all assumed (or hoped) it would.

So what am I trying to say? As parents we have to believe that our parenting makes a difference. Otherwise, it’s an overwhelming task. By secular standards, socio-economic status determines our success in life. But for Christians, it has to be more than that. Yet in both of the Christian books I described, the spiritual formation of any child goes beyond what even the best parents can do. In fact, some Christian parents who do everything right, end up driving their children away from God. As much as parents would like to believe that model parenting matters (and it can certainly help things), ultimately each person on this planet has to recognize the pursuit of God in their life and be willing to respond. I’ve come to understand that there is no way I can really introduce my children to God. Now, I can surely model the importance of personal relationship before them. I can also place them in environments where the Holy Spirit can draw them to him. But in the end that’s between my child and God. And there’s nothing I can do about that.

But there’s hope. I also believe that God will go to the same extremes that he has done with me and my wife in order to develop a relationship with my children. God doesn’t pursue a relationship with my children because I want him to. He pursues them because he wants to. And his desire for their salvation far outweighs any hopes I may have for my children. So I model my Christianity, not because it’s important for them to see it. I model it because my Christianity is important to me. And as God pursues them, one day their Christianity will be important to them as well. Not as a cultural condition, but as a genuine love response to the overwhelming goodness of their Creator.

Roads, Part 2

I am amazed at people’s willingness to share their opinions on just about anything. One exclusive on 20/20 or the latest one-liners from Glenn Beck and we become experts on any subject. I’ve shared with you before that I don’t get into politics very much at all. As someone who has acdemically studied something in depth, I now feel totally unqualified to have strong opinions about anything (much less politics) without having done the research. I don’t research politics; therefore I don’t have many opinions about it.

One of the most amazing things about people’s willingness to criticize our government is where it happens. To me, the funniest place this occurs in on the interstate. We spend hours driving down government maintained roads while cursing the government for mismanagement of funds, shady business deals, and international insensitivity. While we travel on their roads! It cracks me up. Maybe that’s not very funny to you – I think there’s a lot of irony there. It’s like people who criticized Bush but then made sure they received their child tax credit. Or those who criticized Clinton while taking advantage of the Family Medical Leave Act. There’s something wrong about that. 

Though I may not agree with everything our government does, I’m not about to slander them while taking advantage of their provision for our country. Sure, there’s plenty of mismanagement in government. But I’m not really talking about government here, am I? I’m talking about people. Americans feel they have a right to assert their opinions. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, there is something terribly wrong in turning a blind eye to the fortunate lifestyle we partake of. The ungrateful message between the lines? “I could do better.” At least for me, I’m not so sure I could. Maybe that’s a better topic to think about while driving down the road.