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: 78% [?]
Review: A History of God by Karen Armstrong
The name of this blog should give you a clue that I am interested in religion. Some of that is definitely a morbid attraction, but otherwise the experience of religious belief has affected history for centuries, and I find understanding the history of religion to be important (but not centrally so) in thinking about how we got here.
To that end, I recently bought and read Karen Armstrong’s book The History of God
It begins with a description of how monotheism came about, based mainly on a critical reading of the bible and how a middle eastern tribe moved from the belief that their god wanted no other gods before him to the belief that there were no other gods. Once this monotheism is set up, the action moves to the god of early Christianity, and then to the god of Muhammed and early Islam, before continuing to the present day comparing and contrasting beliefs about god in all three traditions.
The over-riding principle of Armstrong seems to be that there are essentially three main views that the Abrahamic religions have held about god - the personal god, the philosophers’ god and the mystics’ god. Towards the end of the book she argues that the reason that western Christianity has problems is that it has been too heavily focussed on the personal god, at the expense of the other views (she suggests that the problems existing in Islam and Judaism are linked to external causes rather than theological ones).
The personal god, Armstrong suggests, is the god that atheists reject (and with good reason) as contradictory. This is the sky daddy god, the god of the Simpsons, and I think the one that Dawkins attacks the most in The God Delusion. It’s the first conception of god that the Israelites had and it remains popular.
The philosophers view of god, is the argued, rational logical one. In Armstrong’s view this is the god of Newton and the enlightenment, Aristotle and the Greeks, Pascal’s wager and the Deists. Unfortunately for people who might think that proving that god exists using logic and reason is a good idea, the more thought that goes into this Armstrong contends, the more it becomes unworkable. The rational god is the one that Nietzsche proclaimed is dead.
Armstrong feels on stronger ground with the god of the mystics. This is the god that has been most commonly described or experienced in Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. This is the god of Buddha, the Kabbalah, Sufi and Hasidic thought. Contemplation of the paradoxes in creation and hard spiritual work lead to glimpses of the divine. Armstrong is keen to stress that the mystical god is not the emotional outburst of the conversion experience, but requires study and brings calm and peace, saying:
A sense of peace, serenity and loving-kindness are the hallmarks of all true religious insight.
The implication in the book is that the god of the mystics may be the god that modern society creates for itself and that is certainly plausible. But this is clearly the god that Armstrong herself believes in, of course she thinks it’s right but it doesn’t make it any more real as far as I’m concerned - mystical experiences can be real without being supernatural.
A History of God is a good book if you are interested in religious thought. The beginning of the book is an excellent introduction to what modern scholars think is most likely to be the origin of the bible and Judaism. It also contains an introduction to Islam which is equally as fascinating. On the other hand, it is long and I often got the sense that these theists were all equally deluded but in their own unique ways, which was slightly frustrating.
Popularity: 56% [?]
Tagged by a History Meme
I was tagged by the chaplain for a history meme. This doesn’t stray too far off topic, I promise.
The rules are:
- Link to the person who tagged you.
- List 7 random/weird things about your favourite historical figure.
- Tag seven more people at the end of your blog and link to theirs.
- Let the person know they have been tagged by leaving a note on their blog.
I like to think that my favourite historical figure is an unusual one. Thomas More was an English politician, lawyer and scholar from the 16th century. Oh, and he’s a canonised saint and martyr in the Catholic Church.
Trivia about Thomas More:
- He popularised the term Utopia for a hypothetical perfect place in his book of the same name (it’s actually Latin for nowhere).
- He was the first secular Chancellor of England, following in the footsteps of Cardinal Wolsey.
- He co-wrote the pamphlet Assertio Septem Sacramentorum Martinum Lutherum (Declaration of the Seven Sacraments Against Martin Luther) which caused the Pope to confer the title Defender of the Faith on Henry VIII. This title has been used by all subsequent English/British monarchs.
- He took part in the persecution of William Tyndale, one of the pre-eminent early English Protestants, whose translation of the Bible strongly influenced the King James version.
- He was friends with Erasmus, whose satirical attack on the Catholic Church In Praise of Folly was dedicated to More.
- He was the first English patron of Hans Holbein, who is famous for his court paintings of Henry VIII, particularly that showing the King with his third wife Jane Seymour and his three children Mary, Elizabeth and Edward.
- He cemented the reputation of Richard III as a tyrant through his early work The History of Richard III. This reputation was later popularised further by Shakespeare of course.
Thomas More has been my favourite historical figure for a long time, certainly pre-dating my atheism. There’s much in his life that I think is unethical, immoral, and plain wrong - he certainly would have had no compunction in burning me at the stake.
One of the things that I do admire, is his willingness to stand up for his beliefs, even though he knew that they were likely to lead him into serious trouble. Of course, he believed that he would be rewarded in the next life, but even so, it can’t have been easy.
I tend to judge historical figures by two sets of rules, my own, and those of the period in which they lived. Thomas More was certainly an ethical man by his own standards, and those of many other people who lived at the same time. By my own, he was a lot less so.
I’m not tagging, because I don’t feel like I want to force it on people (I didn’t feel forced myself by the way), but if you feel so inclined, consider yourself tagged.
Popularity: 13% [?]
