Commenting on Religion and Science? Understand Science
I’ve decided that a second career as a theologian would actually drive me round the bend.
I found some fairly interesting taster material for a distance learning degree in Theology and Religious Studies from Oxford Brookes University. I was particularly taken by the material on Religion and Politics, which poses interesting questions for students to answer, and is relevant to both religious, and non-religious people.
As a science-y sort of person, I also read through the notes on Religion and Science. Which is what has set me dead against becoming a theologian, at least outside a strongly secular department.
Note Evolution remains a theory because there are still some problems with a complete explanation of creation; the ‘missing link’–the creature that links human beings with ape-like ancestors–is one.
Can I repeat for the record, in science, the word theory does not mean the same thing as it does in normal usage. In science, theory basically means coherent explanation, not crackpot idea.
Evolution remains a theory, because it hasn’t been replaced yet. When it is it may become known as the discredited theory of evolution. But that doesn’t always happen, we know that Newton’s Theory of Gravity isn’t the best explanation of how the universe is and that there are problems with Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, its replacement. But they are still extremely important and useful scientific theories.
I don’t mind people not understanding what a scientific theory is - not everyone is educated. People have a bigger problem with evolutionary theory than they do with plate tectonic theory or electromagnetic theory or big bang theory but that doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to misinform other people what scientific theory is. If you don’t know, don’t pretend you do.
There are undoubtedly things still to discover in evolution. And it would be great to have more mathematics involved - there should always be more mathematics. But that does not make it a half-baked idea. If you think the modern evolutionary synthesis is not the best explanation for observable facts, study hard, get your PhD in biology, do your own research and come up with a better explanation. If you achieve it you’ll undoubtedly get a Nobel Prize, and I would be delighted to see it. But don’t make stuff up about science that misleads people.
Popularity: 68% [?]
Religion, the Reformation, and Not Shaking off the Past
I’ve been watching a Channel 4 series ‘The History of Christianity’. Each programme is presented by a different person and focuses on a particular time of importance in the history of Christendom (it’s more or less about western European Christianity and it impacts). The latest episode was presented by Ann Widdecombe and covers the reformation - with a somewhat natural emphasis on the English experience.
It reminded me why I still identify with a religion that I no longer believe in. I am a baptised Catholic and was educated as such, although clearly now I’m not exactly a member in good standing. I disagree strongly with many of the pronouncements of the pope, the restrictions of Catholicism and the attitudes of the church hierarchy. I also strongly dislike the politics, opinions and religious views of Ann Widdecombe, a right wing Conservative politician who converted to Catholicism when the Church of England allowed the ordination of women priests.
The reason that I still identify - when Widdecombe converted to Catholicism she received hate mail describing her as a traitor. Similarly when the Queen became the first monarch to visit Westminster Cathedral (RC) members of the crowd cried out that she was a ‘betrayer’. In commemorative events in the West Country, they still burn the Pope in effigy because of something that happened nearly 500 years ago.
I might no longer be a believer, and I have never experienced overt anti-Catholicism, but it would feel like I was somehow condoning the attitudes of people who think that being Catholic and being British are incompatible. Because they aren’t, at all. I’ve always been English and British, and I’ve nearly always been Catholic and I’ve never had a problem. Somehow, being atheist doesn’t give me a free pass.
Popularity: 62% [?]
what do we think about faith schools?
There’s a lot of stuff about at the moment about faith schools. In particular, about whether they are a good idea, whether they promote a positive self-image for people of minority faiths (which, let’s face it in the UK is people of any faith), or whether they act against integration.
Now, on this divided issue I have to declare an interest. As with more than one person in the world, I haven’t always been an atheist. In fact growing up, I went to two different faith schools - primary and secondary. They were both really nice schools. Not perfect, but the kids were generally well-behaved, the staff were caring, the ethos was sound and the exam results were excellent. In short, these are the faith schools that people want to emulate.
If I ever have children, then I would want send them to a school that was like the schools that I went to. Caring, with a good sense of community, and the opportunity for them to reach their potential. As I’ve always had a positive experience with faith schools, before I realised that I was atheist, I assumed that I would want to send them to a church school.
However, these days I think that it’s a mistake to say that faith schools are particularly good. In general, parents have to jump through several hoops (usually of the church attendance variety) to get in. Which means that they are going to attract the sorts of parents willing to invest quite a bit of time and effort into their children’s education. I’m not sure the faith schools create the nice kids as select for them.
Also, more than I used to, I embrace multiculturalism. Whether or not you think, as I do, that it’s truly amazing to get to live in a diverse and vibrant community, the fact is that here in the UK we do. Better then to expose our children to it early on. No matter how much they try to provide a view of life on the outside, most faith schools have a limited population, not just in terms of belief, but in terms of race. The new Hindu Krishna-Avanti school has all Asian pupils. In the same education authority, I suspect that St John Fisher RC School has almost no Asian pupils, nor the Moriah Jewish Day School.
Where atheists are concerned I think there’s also a problem of children having sheltered ideas about non-faith. Until I was say 14 or so, I didn’t know anybody who wasn’t at least nominally connected with a religion. The idea that some people simply didn’t believe in god was completely alien to me. I still sometimes subconsciously confuse faith and being a good person - I automatically assume that someone who has a strong faith is therefore worthy. When I think about it, I can see the basic error I’m making, but I don’t always think about it.
The problem I see is that there isn’t separation of church and state in England. Given that, I can’t see any likelihood of existing C of E schools losing public funding. The Catholic church and the United Synagogue would undoubtedly also be up in arms if there long established schools were no longer in the state sector. And you definitely shouldn’t be promoting one faith above another (despite the established church) which means that you also have to allow state funded Hindu, Sikh and Muslim schools, and some are in existence.
Overall, I’m not sure that I like faith schools any more, although I still retain a soft spot for my own schools. But I don’t think that they’re going to go away. Maybe it would be better to have a semblance of a national, rather than local, curriculum in RE and ensure that all faith positions, and none, are taught in our schools.
Popularity: 79% [?]
