(Return to my home page) : Blog Home : February 2007
Is It Reasonable To Believe In God?
February 2, 2007 08:30
Last night we had a discussion on campus of this topic, and I thought I'd share some of my thoughts on the subject in writing here. If the question is understood to mean whether one can prove God's existence, then presumably the answer is no, in the sense that no argument has been found that is entirely persuasive so as to convince any skeptic. If, on the other hand, we mean whether it is compatible with reason, then the answer may be yes. Is it reasonable for me to believe that Barber's violin concerto is beautiful? (I chose this example rather than the second movement of Atterberg's Symphony No.2 because it is more familiar, but for me it is the latter that is most persuasive in leading me to believe in beauty, transcendence, and as a result ultimately in God!)
Of course, it was objected that no one could doubt the existence of this concerto, whereas the existence of God is debatable. This may be a valid point, if one is assuming that "God" refers to an object among others in the universe. But it was suggested that the question of God's existence is not akin to the question of the Loch Ness Monster's existence. At least for panentheists and pantheists, the question is not about the existence of another being, but of a transcendent level of reality beyond our own. In this case, the question is like a debate about whether love exists, or whether personhood exists. For reductionists, the things we call by these names are simply terms for epiphenomena reducable to descriptions in terms of neurological impulses and chemical stimuli - in other words, reducable to brain science. For many who have had the experience of these realities (yes, I dare to call them that), this scientific description is not threatening, but neither is it adequate. Those who explain religion merely in such terms have been compared in one recent article I read to the work of "tone-deaf musicologists" who regard with disdain those who talk about these scores and performances as though they had some transcendent aspect called "beauty".
All religious language is metaphorical, and just as the discovery that the miniature solar system is not an adequate metaphor for the subatomic world, although it corresponds usefully in some respects, does not disprove the existence of the subatomic world, neither does the discovery that many of our theological metaphors are inadequate disprove the existence of God. Theology begins with the affirmation that all religious language is analogical (at best), and is inadequate to describe the transcendent reality it is pointing to. Indeed, if this were not the case, God would no longer be the subject under discussion! It is one of the remarkable features of the Book of Job that it depicts positively an individual who is willing to rethink his idea of God and God's relationship to the world in light of experiences that serve as counter-evidence. Job (unlike his friends) is willing to judge some metaphors as too inadequate and seek better ones. Nevertheless, when it comes to language about God, we are not dealing with a component reality of our own existence that we can examine. We are rather talking about levels of transcendence beyond our own. An analogy I use far too often is that of two cells in a human body having a conversation. One says that it looks around and all it sees are cells, cells cells. We're born, we die, and that is it. The other says that sometimes it things that maybe we're all part of one big cell. The latter is not by any means accurately describing what it is like to be a human being with its "cellulomorphic" language, but it may nevertheless be pointing to something that is profoundly true, namely being part of something bigger, something transcendent that gives existence greater meaning. The human person is the most transcendent thing we are familiar with, and that's why it is a preferred metaphor for God. Beyond personhood we do not know what other levels of transcendence might be like (although love might again be useful to mention as something that happens between two individuals and thus involves a limited but significant transcendence), and our language tends to get abstract. But Hans Küng is surely right to suggest that it is not inappropriate to talk about God as "at least personal" and "more than personal", even though we have no more idea of what that really means than an individual human cell could have a concept of what it is like to be a human person.
Finally, I found myself thinking about the falsifiability of religious beliefs. Many would say that nothing could persuade them that God does not exist (although the claim is dubious given that people frequently change their mind about this subject, in both directions). That in itself might make the claim unfalsifiable and thus "not even false" and unworthy of intellectual discussion. Yet while some of those who talk about nothing they can imagine being able to persuade them to change their beliefs about God are merely those who have been well indoctrinated and find security in holding to what they have always believed, not everyone who feels this way fits this category. For others of us, language of God corresponds to a powerful and personal spiritual experience that we have had. For those of us in that category, the falisifiability of God is like the falsifiability of gravity: we have so much or so powerful and experience of what we are discussing that it is no longer an open question in any real sense. Certainly it might be necessary to completely rethink what gravity or what God is, but to suggest that new evidence will appear that will show that we have not had these experiences seems unreasonable. And so, for those who have had a life-changing religious experience, it would seem unreasonable not to believe in God. The experience was certainly psychological - were it not, it would not be a human experience. It may be that the experience corresponds to something that is a natural part of existence, rather than something supernatural, and it might be necessary to rethink what we are pointing to with our language about God. But to suggest that those who have had such experiences are all merely delusional is unfair. It is because of our own experience of choosing which ice cream to eat that we find academic discussions that deny free will unpersuasive. It is because of our own experience of the beauty of a piece of music or a sunrise that analysis in terms of chemical composition, frequencies of vibration or movement of photons may be true but is far from adequate. For those of us for whom a personal religious experience is part of our life experience, is it wrong to think that, rather than our being deluded with respect to what has been a profoundly positive influence in our lives, perhaps those who have never had such an experience and doubt its reality are simply like those who are "not musical", and this is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but neither is it something to be proud of. I find myself wondering whether it is possible to learn to appreciate transcendence and spirituality in the same ways that we learn to appreciate good food, good music, and many other things that are acquired tastes. Might it be that some people are simply "religiously tone deaf"? One thing is for certain, to my mind at any rate: when it comes to religion, many people are settling for fast food or are too busy to eat at all, and have never even tasted some of the best of what is available, much less having learned to appreciate it in all its nuances and subtleties.
LOST returns
February 8, 2007 11:45
The premier of the new season of LOST was last night on ABC. It contained an immediate resolution to a few cliffhangers from last season, but apart from that advanced our understanding of what is going on on the island relatively little. The one moment when we almost learned a great deal (When Tom began to explain the after-effects of "When the sky turned purple..."), the subject was immediately changed because Jack nicked an artery while operating on Ben. The backstory for Juliet is certainly interesting, as is the recruitment process used to get some of the scientists involved in the research on the island. But there are presumably also some misleading clues (presumably just as Ms. Beatrice Klugh - pronounced 'clue' - was herself a distracting non-clue last season). The Others know a lot about the survivors and are extremely manipulative. They chose to bring back precisely Jack, Kate and Sawyer, even though they did not need anyone but Jack for the operation. Are we really supposed to think that Juliet did not know enough about Jack to know he would not kill Ben on the operating table? On the contrary, the whole thing was well thought through. They knew he would not simply kill Ben, but also that he would need a motivation (the freedom and survival of Kate in particular) to do the operation. They provided him with both, as well as forcing him to consider (in order to inevitably reject) the possibility of killing Ben when he has him in his power during the operation.
Lost raises a lot of interesting questions about free will and determinism - and not only explicitly, when the characters start talking about 'fate'. The characters (like so many) start as flat stereotypes, whom we are then made to get to know and treat more individually as the story progresses. Their behavior, however, is clearly not entirely unpredictable. Could someone who knows our character and those of others around us utilize that knowledge in order to accomplish something - a greater purpose, if you will - not be compelling us to play our part, but by knowing us and then putting us in circumstances in which we will (inevitably?) behave in a certain, predictable manner? To claim that we have free choice, as philosophers know but many others do not, does not mean that our actions are either undetermined or unpredictable. Lost provides a great opportunity to reflect on these and other important philosophical topics!
The "God" Part of the Brain
February 19, 2007 14:33
I just finished reading Matthew Alper's book The "God" Part of the Brain
Alper is a reductionist - science can explain the physiological and neurological basis for religious experience, and thus there is no transcendent (he prefers "supernatural") reality. He identifies this reductionist approach as the scientific one (p.227), but philosophical as opposed to merely methodological reductionism is by no means entailed by science. And although he quotes Einstein positively as having called for the discovery of a spiritual basis for getting along with one another if human civilization is to survive, he seems to utterly ignore that Einstein (whose status as a scientist can scarcely be doubted) views spirituality not only as compatible with science but as a necessary component of human life if the latter is to be all that it can be. Alper's claim to be open to the possibility of the reality of the spiritual is not convincing, since the same critique of religious perception (namely that it is all in the brain) could be made of all our perception. Why should we assume that, unlike our other senses, our religious perceptions do not merely have the potential to mislead us, but by definition do so? Recognizing the former is a key to humility and is common sense, even if it is very much lacking in most of us; the latter seems to exclude as nonsense some of the loftiest and most inspiring thoughts and experiences humans have had. Personally, I find Alper offers no reason why one should follow him down that path.
Panentheism
February 20, 2007 13:43
John W. Cooper's recent book Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers--From Plato to the Present
Cooper's book is nonetheless useful in showing just what a lengthy and respectable pedigree panentheism has within the Christian and Western philosophical tradition. When one adds to this the Sufi tradition in Islam, and Hinduism as well, it becomes an idea whose widespread connection with mysticism makes it worthy of serious consideration. I suspect that for some Cooper's book will have the same effect as certain arguments against Deism had on Benjamin Franklin! :-)
Commenting on my blog
February 20, 2007 14:39
Unfortunately I had not been able to make it possible for readers of my blog to post comments without moving my blog to another site. That is, until now! I read about a script that will supposedly make it possible to post comments on any site, and have added it to this particular entry. I have been told that there are people actually reading this blog of mine. If so, try this and let's see if it works! I've placed the comment script in the side bar on the left hand side of the page, in the hope that the comments will remain even after more blog entries are added. Hope this works!
Recent science books
February 21, 2007 09:58
Two very recent books I've had the pleasure of reading at least parts of are The Top 10 Myths About Evolution
Ten Myths seeks to counter some important misconceptions about biological evolution. Among those mentioned are the idea that we came from monkeys (anyone who understands evolution knows that it claims we share a common ancestor, and are not descended from monkeys or any other species existing today), and that evolution is "just a theory" (a scientific theory must have extensive data to support it and is not simply a hypothesis or a hunch). As T. Dobzhansky famously wrote (quoted on p.38), "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Those who are opposed to evolution do so because they have failed to understand it or because it challenges other views they hold dear, but in doing so they are not merely opposing one particular scientific viewpoint but are opposing biology itself and indeed science itself. This book by Smith and Sullivan also helpfully shows that some other mistaken notions about evolution are equally incorrect - such as the idea that evolution is immoral and teaches "the survival of the fittest" in the sense of the rule and success of the strongest and most selfish. In fact, evolution/biology is full of examples of instances where species have adapted to their environment in a manner that makes them dependent on and interdependent with other species, so that sharing and harmony are the necessary result.
One ought to add to this list of misconceptions the question of how life began. Evolution deals only with how life that already exists develops, changes and adapts. The question of how life began is a separate branch of science, and the lack of certainty about the origins of life from a scientific perspective have no bearing whatsoever on the validity, viability or accuracy of the theory of evolution. The biggest issue, however, is that those who most need to read this book will inevitably not do so. There is so much six-day creationist propaganda circulating (even after having been discredited and shown to be not only inaccurate but dishonest) that it seems impossible to overcome and properly educate the public. Only clergy actually speaking out and helping congregations understand these matters and that science and faith are not incompatible will enable progress. Unfortunately, many scientists compound the problem by claiming as scientists that science and faith are incompatible.
Conversations on Consciousness is in dialogue form and is genuinely a series of conversations with leading experts in fields relevant to the study and understanding of consciousness. Although some claim that understanding consciousness is simply a matter of understanding the brain, others rightly note that (to give one example) describing brain activity that occurs while seeing a certain frequency of light is not the same thing as experiencing the color red. I discuss this topic myself in a chapter that I hope will appear in the not-too-distant future in a book on religion and science fiction, in which I talk about the problem of consciousness in relation to artificial intelligence.
As I've told my students of late, who sometimes feel that no conclusion is possible in areas like Biblical archaeology, where there are so many conflicting viewpoints found on the web, it is simply not true that nothing is certain. As science, archaeology, history, and other disciplines make progress, they also raise new questions. But one can look at peer reviewed journals and publications by leading experts at academic institutions with a serious reputation and see how much is agreed upon. In those same places, one can read divergent opinions on some matters, and those matters on which such experts agree are probably reasonably certain. As in a court of law, so also in history and often in science, conclusions depend on what evidence is available. It remains possible that future discoveries will overturn conclusions we thought were certain. But here too we must avoid giving a misleading impression. In the future, we may make discoveries that lead us to rethink the mechanism by which gravity works, but that doesn't mean that we will jettison the idea of gravity altogether. Likewise we may discover things in the future that will shed light on and maybe even force us to rethink some of our current understanding of how evolution works. But evolution itself is something we can see in a petrie dish, in the fossil record, and in comparitive genetics. It is as certain as we can be in such matters; it is as certain in biology that organisms are related and share common ancestors as it is certain in linguistics that French and Italian share a common ancestor in Latin. Evolution, in one form or another, is here to stay.
To mention one last myth that the book by Smith and Sullivan discusses, we often hear about the "missing link" and this often confuses people. In studying the development of living organisms, archaeologists seek evidence of intermediate forms between two known forms that appear to be related. When one is found, it is the discovery of a "missing link". But guess what - it just created room for two more "missing links" on either side. The fossil record is by definition piecemeal, and so we will never find in it every single organism in between two others. But scientists have found plenty of intermediate forms, without by any means filling in (or expecting to fill in) every step in the development of the organisms in question.
So how do we get those people who write letters to the editor about how science disproves evolution to read this book? How do we help the public understand how to interpret statements by scientists and to grasp what is certain and what is as yet uncertain? We all rely on experts - none of us can perform surgery, fix our car, repair our computer, program software, analyse DNA and answer every question in every field of specialization. In looking for information on any subject outside one's area of expertise, it is like getting a diagnosis from a doctor. It is most definitely a good idea to get a second and perhaps even a third opinion. The majority viewpoint can be wrong, but it is extremely unlikely that the majority of doctors or other experts will be wrong while some amateur without relevant studies (even if he or she has a web page) will provide more accurate analysis than those experts. But seeking a second or third opinion is a good way of guaging whether the experts in fact agree. What is a very bad idea is to keep going from doctor to doctor until you find one who says what you want to hear. Yet so many people do precisely this, looking for self-proclaimed medical experts, scientists, Biblical archaeologists or theologians whose amateur opinions agree with what they already think and desperately want the answer to be. This is what the Bible warns about when it mentions people who seek teachers that will "tickle their ears" and say what they want to hear. Ironically, this serious misstep is extremely frequent among those who claim they take the Bible's teachings seriously!
Publicizing my blog
February 21, 2007 12:13
It is now possible to subscribe to my Blog feed at http://feeds.feedburner.com/butler/jilz You can then add a feed to your Yahoo!, Google or other page and it will show the latest "headlines"! You will also see below that some of the links that various blog directories ask us to add to our sites work better than others! :-)
Skepticism and Credulity
February 22, 2007 08:59
In more than one recent format I've interacted with the atheist/skeptic/freethinker movement and it has been an interesting experience. What struck me most is how many people who are part of these organizations that supposedly emphasize critical thinking is how many people comment on Jesus never having existed using arguments that would persuade no serious historian, indeed no person that was not already either already persuaded that Jesus did not exist, or at least already hoping that this was the case. Then there are many more who will cite arguments from web pages that Jesus was patterned on the Egyptian Horus or other such claims, for which there is no clear direct link and a serious historical implausibility. This is not to deny what C. S. Lewis famously noted, namely that there are many parallels between the depictions of Jesus in early Christian literature and many myths. These are perhaps best explained in most instances as evidence of deep-seated underlying human concerns and archetypes; in relatively few instances do we have evidence of direct borrowing.
My overall impression (sparked by reading a book about Jesus in Jewish tradition called The Jesus the Jews Never Knew
I hope to post something about my current research interests soon. I also find myself wondering after last night's episode of LOST whether my interpretation of what is going on was wrong (and indeed, I also find myself wondering whether the writers are taking us somewhere or are making it all up as they go along). But for now, it will suffice to direct your attention to some of my friends' blogs:
Ashley Holmes http://virginia-fell.livejournal.com/101480.html (the only person so far to claim that my blog has a fan base!)
Brad Matthies http://www.taozenchi.com/bcpblog/
Robin Zebrowski http://www.firepile.com/robin/
If any other friends have blogs, let me know! There are also some fantastic blogs by excellent scholars of the Bible, Judaism and Christianity. Some that are worth pointing to are already well known by people in the discipline, but will make useful reading to those who take the advice of today's posting and seek to listen to serious Biblical and historical scholarship instead of simply listening to the views of those who say what they want to hear!
Marc Goodacre http://www.ntgateway.com/weblog/
April DeConick http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/index.html
Jim Davila http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com
Again, I'd welcome suggestions for others that are worth mentioning - both because I'd like to provide links to them, but also because I'd like to read them!
Fundamentalism and fanaticism - a reply to Steven Dolvin
February 23, 2007 23:03
I write this as a Christian and more specifically a Baptist. I begin with this specification since a similar one appears in the letter to the editor in our school newspaper The Collegian to which I am replying. Alas, I feel that Steven Dolvin, the colleague of mine who wrote the letter and who is apparently from the same broad tradition as I (but equally apparently from the other end of the spectrum of Baptists/Christians), has done the reputation of the faith we share in common a disservice through his letter. He begins by addressing himself to biology professor (and Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences) Michael Zimmerman and suggesting that, while he is no expert on biology, he could provide "a series of evidence illustrating some of the deficiencies in the theory of evolution." This is a typical fundamentalist modus operandi - I know, since I used it in my fundamentalist days, although without recognizing it for what it was. One cannot actually engage any biologist who knows his or her field on the topic in a serious debate, since one's lack of proficiency in biology would quickly become apparent. So one simply insinuates that evolution is full of holes, is "just a theory", and so on. I was sorely tempted to reply by casting similar aspersions on Dr. Dolvin's own field and write a letter to the editor suggesting that I could easily cite a string of evidence showing that the whole theory of finance is seriously problematic. Of course, no one would take me seriously, but neither should anyone take seriously claims of fundamentalists who suggest that there are serious problems with the theory of evolution. There are certainly gaps in our knowledge, but that is part for the course. But as new evidence has been accumulated since Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution through natural selection, evidence has come to light that has consistently confirmed (and at times has helped to significantly refine) the theory, but it has not invalidated. Darwin came up with his theory before Europeans knew about other primates in Africa, before the discovery of genes, much less of DNA. Everything that has been discovered has consistently confirmed evolution.
What changed my own mind on the subject? First and foremost it was science. Not your everyday run of the mill books on the subject, but books by those wonderful scientists gifted with the patience to explain to poorly-informed individuals who had only read young earth creationist junk science on the subject precisely where the arguments for this viewpoint were mistaken, inaccurate, and in some cases outright lies. It is first and foremost my conviction that religion be about truth or about nothing at all that makes the frequent repetitions of such claims as "true science disproves evolution" and other such claims that, in spite of scientists having adequately answered them, are repeated again and again in Christian literature, sermons, etc. The second thing that persuaded me that such arguments are misguided is the Bible. If one attempts to be a Biblical literalist, one has to believe in the dome over the earth, that a circle has four corners (since we are told in Job that God sits enthroned on the circle of the earth, and the Bible also mentions the four corners of the earth) and that the earth is thus the answer to the famous conundrum of whether God can make a square circle, and that petunias, begonias and orchids do not exist (since their seeds, tinier than mustard seeds, would invalidate the literal factual accuracy of certain words of Jesus). Eventually it became clear that when one genuinely reads the Bible it does not in fact lead one to interpret it as providing scientifically or even historically precise information.
Dr. Dolvin also suggests that since no one was around when the earth came into existence, we cannot answer questions about origins using science. It all boils down to faith. This is a seriously problematic statement, since in effect it suggests that anything that happened in the past that was not witnessed by living human beings cannot be known with any certainty in the present. Such arguments would invalidate not only evolutionary biology but geology, physics and cosmology - but most importantly criminology and forensics. Presumably many judges and detectives will need to seek alternative employment once they hear this remarkable news that we cannot hope to prove beyond reasonable doubt things that happened in instances in which there were no eyewitnesses present (at least who lived to tell about it). All conclusions based on deduction and evidence are apparently worthless. I must admit not that I find such a claim unpersuasive.
The Book of Proverbs says that the first person to present his case seems right until another steps forward and questions him. That is how I was converted from a fundamentalism that adhered to a literal six-day creationism to an approach more in keeping with the historic Christian faith as expressed in the writings of the church's great theologians. Dr. Dolvin, while admirably seeking to stand up for his faith, is not standing up for a faith that is in keeping with either the emphases of the Bible or the revelation God has provided in his "other book" according to Christian tradition, that is to say, in nature. I hope that at some point we can have some friendly and mutually illuminating discussions about these and other important topics of mutual interest. I hope that he will find this possible even though I feel Michael Zimmerman's grasp not only of biology but also of Christian theology is sounder than his.
God's Universe
February 25, 2007 13:37
I just finished reading God's Universe
William Paley famously argued that if one finds a stone one will not react as though encountering something "contrived", but if one finds a watch one will. This analogy is problematic if for no other reason than that one presumes Paley believed that God had indeed made the stones, but he did not make watches. And in spite of their intricate features, whether a carrot or even a person really resembles something a human being would contrive is unclear: watches are not found in nature, but carrots and people are. They were, as it were, already here when we got here.
If one thinks of a scientific analysis of a nail embedded in a plank of wood, one could imagine religious scientists searching for signs of intelligent design by suggesting that one look for characteristics of the metal that could not occur naturally, for laws of physics that were broken in the process of embedding, and so on. As it turns out, the scientists might find nothing on these levels that suggests design: the evidence of design is found in the configuration and the signs of action of human beings. But here once again we also see how the analogy becomes problematic. Do we really know how a divine designer would work? Would laws of physics be violated? Would we even know what configurations demonstrate contrivance? From the perspective of faith, a universe that can follow its own logic and "natural laws" and produce living and thinking beings like us is no less awe-inspiring that the universe about which people in the past thought about God as "tinkering" with the universe and making things "with his hands", as it were.
Our expanded knowledge of the universe has a dramatic theological impact that most of us who are religious believers have been influenced by and yet with which many still wrestle. The universe is far vaster than any Biblical author imagined. To speak of God as higher than the highest heaven (if anyone wishes to use that metaphor) is to make God larger than such language indicated a few thousand years ago, and it may be that such language (as in the praise song that goes "God of wonders beyond our galaxy") situates God (whether intending to or not) much further away than in the past. The truth is that we simply cannot think of God in precisely the ways our distant ancestors do. Although I could argue this as a "should" of intellectual and logical obligation, it really is in many respects a simple statement of fact: no one in the modern world really manages to think of God in precisely the way pre-modern people did. Yet some of us struggle to cling to antiquated language, as though it were the language that mattered rather than the transcendant reality that the language points to.
This process is a Biblical one. Although the early Hebrew writers whose works are in the Bible thought of a underworld below and heavens above, by the time of the New Testament the Ptolemaic worldview was around and authors mention multiple heavens, with forces of darkness and dominion located in the heavenly places. Worldview shifts have always taken place, and later writers update their metaphors in light of such revised understandings. And so it is that those who cling strictly to Biblical language are in fact ignoring the Biblical approach to dealing with changes in worldview. The Bible itself would lead us to accept the new worldview and either adapt our metaphors or find new ones that are more appropriate. That is what the Biblical authors themselves did, after all.
Evangelism, Education and Religious Freedom
February 26, 2007 13:21
Religious freedom - it seems like such a simple concept and such a lofty ideal. Yet we can still find ourselves getting muddled in all sorts of grey areas, or at least areas that raise important additional issues, even if those pertaining strictly to religious freedom are ultimately clear cut.
There is something fundamentally different between the free speech of a minority group and the free speech of a group that is in the majority, particularly if it is an overwhelming majority. Is it really the same thing if someone from the U.S. goes to Nepal and calls upon people to believe in Jesus, and if a group of Americans in a town in the U.S. gather around the only Nepali there and call on him or her to convert? Although in examples from colonial era India, the connection between state power and the Christian message was much closer, in the U.S. there can still be similar situations involving peer pressure, if not government influence. This is particularly true in cases involving youth, who already feel great pressure to conform and fit in.
I would expect any person who is a genuine religious believer to agree that conversion motivated by peer pressure is unlikely to lead to a genuinely personal faith, and is thus something that I would expect the faithful themselves to avoid. Yet in so many instances it seems that the right to practice one's own religious tradition as a member of a minority group might seem to be in tension with the freedom of the majority to share their own faith with such an individual, with all the pressures that may entail. (As an aside, I remember vividly my own inconsistency on religious freedom in my fundamentalist days. If someone refused to make room for my own conservative Evangelical perspective I would cry "intolerance", and yet I also complained if I saw a bookstore carrying copies of the Satanic Bible or other literature I viewed as abhorrent).
It is in this context that I find myself wondering who in fact should be sharing their faith, not merely in the sense of talking about one's own beliefs with those one considers friends, but engaging in activities such as public preaching. I remember vividly hearing a paper at a Society of Biblical Literature conference at which the presented noted that Paul in his letters nowhere calls upon ordinary Christians to evangelize. I was, I am quite certain, not alone in reacting first by feeling that this cannot be true, and then feeling foolish in never having noticed this! I, for one, often felt that every person ought to be able to talk about their faith, and that the inability to do so (or to do so clearly and effectively) represented a failure of the churches to adequately teach and train people. I now find myself viewing things slightly differently, in the sense that I understand why Paul might not have called upon Christians generally to actively share their faith.
Understanding the Bible, in Protestant tradition, is something that everyone is supposed to be able to do. Yet a major problem that has given rise to or at least contributed to fundamentalism in our time is this emphasis, coupled with Bible translations that give the impression that everything is clear cut. Textual and interpretative difficulties are mentioned in footnotes, but most readers of the Bible find it possible to ignore those. The impression that many Christian believers have (and many preachers and popular books help perpetuate) is that all one has to do is read the Bible and then go out and tell other people to believe and practice what it says. Add to this the dilution of the Bible's teaching to "four spiritual laws" or "four things God wants you to know" as printed on tracts, and it becomes something that everyone can share.
Yet the problem is that the Bible consistently depicts public proclamation of the Christian message as something that is done by Jesus himself and by a relatively small number of his followers who have been trained by him or who have a significant education in the Scriptures. Such individuals are depicted in the Bible as approaching evangelism in a very different way than many people today. For those for whom what is crucial is that one mention sin and the cross as means of salvation, many instances of Christian proclamation in the Bible seem to be inadequate. Paul is depicted in Acts 17 as addressing the Athenians, and there he begins by talking about or interacting with Greek philosophers and poets, and only briefly hints at matters to do with Jesus at the very end. This acknowledges both that the main points of the Christian message cannot be understood unless one deals with matters of presupposition first, but also suggests (to me at any rate) that this Christian message and its proclamation is viewed as too important a matter to be hurried, to be squeezed into a sound bite.
Am I suggesting that sharing the Christian message be left to experts? Not really. But I do think that it is important that on the one hand Christians be better educated than they often are on matters to do with the Bible. By this I mean not simply reading the Bible, but reading serious popular but nonetheless academic and scholarly books on matters related to the Bible. The truth is, this collection of ancient writings requires study in order to understand it. One doesn't necessarily need to learn the original languages, but one has at the very least to be aware that this is ancient literature, foreign language literature, and that reading it in translation depends on all sorts of scholarship that has made this possible. Then there is all the necessary background and cultural information, perspectives from archaeology, and other matters. If one hasn't informed oneself by using serious, credible sources then one simply cannot claim to "understand the Bible". If Christians who have never studied would humbly bow out of debates about what the Bible means, if Christians who are not biologists would step aside rather than engage poorly in debates about evolution, it would do everyone a favor. Instead of claiming to know what the Bible is when one has never even seen an ancient manuscript or a critical edition in the original languages, instead of claiming to know what the Bible teaches in all its detail when one has done little more than memorize proof texts, one should talk about what one does know, the experience of spiritual transformation, of community, and so on. In the Bible, debates about the Bible are not something most people do, because in those days most people couldn't even read the Bible. While I think that improved literacy and the resulting increased access to the Bible are good things, back then the majority of Christians were aware that they were dependent on a literate minority for questions about texts and their interpretation. Increased literacy appears to have actually misled people into thinking that they know more than they do, and the result, rather than being improved spirituality, often ends up being arrogance, and claims to certainty where these are not necessarily justified.
I know a professor (who teaches another subject, and not religion) who tells his students bluntly that there is no point in having a discussion, because they don't know anything yet. It is so tempting to say the same thing to students of the Bible: so many Christians have never studied the Bible in a serious academic way, only know about Biblical archaeology the inaccurate and at times downright false claims they find on the web sites of con artists, and in other ways simply don't have the necessary knowledge to engage in a serious intellectual discussion about the Bible or its interpretation. But here the problem is not simply lack of knowledge, but also misinformation, and while learning is difficult, unlearning what one has learned is harder still. Working through these issues is only possible dialogically - unless one works through these matters beginning where religious believers are, they will not learn and have their vision of God and of the Bible expanded in the process. They will instead perceive the new information as either irrelevant or as a threat, and resist or ignore it. And unlike in other fields, many students bring to a class on the Bible some knowledge and at least a vague familiarity with the stories, even if it is often a highly simplistic and over-simplified impression, and this can make a positive contribution to learning. So I do believe that one can begin from there and work inductively, and learn through discussion.
On the other hand, there is a preponderance of misinformation and ill-informed perspectives in churches that is in danger of turning those Christian traditions into a collection of urban legends. The printing press revolutionized the church in many positive ways by bringing the Bible into the language and hands of the many rather than the few. I suppose the question is how we get an understanding of the Bible and Biblical scholarship into those same hands. There is a serious danger that unless this can be accomplished there will be a divide between a minority of well-informed Christians who can speak of what they know, and a larger majority that will continue to perpetuate poor impressions of Christianity as they speak of that which they do not know. The possibility for bringing about this sort of change is possible as never before. The biggest hinderance is not the ability of people to learn, but their willingness. Most Christians, like most people generally, will remain content with what they think they know and will resist anything that challenges their comfort zone. Yet with respect to so many things, Christians already know that if they are open to hearing God's voice it will inevitably take them outside their comfort zones. Why should knowledge of and understanding of the Bible be any different?
As an aside, please note that the possibility to leave comments on individual blog entries now exists. Just click the link at the bottom of each entry. I will not be going back and trying to add place for comments to older entries (although I'll gladly do so on request), but I hope to remember to add the necessary script to all my blog entries from now on!
Religious Intolerance
February 27, 2007 08:49
It is interesting, after having a discussing involving faculty and students recently that touched on issues of political correctness and religious freedom, to read the impact that one of Butler's students, Abby Nye, has had through a recent book of her's called Fish Out of Water
I would like to believe that Abby Nye herself would decry the hateful statements made on that web page. I can't honestly say for sure. But what is clear is that the double standard she uses (which I mentioned in my last blog entry) perpetuates intolerance in our society. When someone asks her to show respect for the holy book of another tradition, she complains; when someone shows disrespect for her own holy book, she complains. She wants her own views, but not those of her opponents, to be protected by the first amendment. In pointing the finger in this way, I acknowledge that I am accusing myself for my own past behavior - indeed, I am openly repentant about things I've done! Of course, it can easily seem that there is a double standard the other way - we are far more tolerant of mockery of Christianity than we would be of mockery of other traditions. But (again, as I suggested in my last blog entry) there is something fundamentally different about the majority poking fun at a group that is in the minority and the reverse.
The Christian Scriptures reflect texts produced in a context in which Christianity was the minority, and Christians continue to have a persecuted minority complex even in a country in which most people self-identify as not only as Christian but as born-again Christian. What Christians, now in the majority or at least a substantial enough proportion of the population to not merely be a marginal voice, and in a context in which their rights are protected, do in this different context is critical. I certainly think that Conservative Christian churches have the right to decide that (just as I wish they would opt to be concerned about social and economic justice and other matters that are given more attention in the Bible). But is it really merely an expression of religious freedom to speak as a majority viewpoint that the media's depiction of homosexuality as normal is a terrible thing? Isn't that inciting intolerance? It is simply unacceptable for Christians to complain when a TV network cuts the phrase "God loves you" from VeggieTales, and then to also complain that they are not descriminating against others! I also wonder what (other than inciting intolerance) Christians hope to accomplish when they engage in public tirades against homosexuality (to pick just one common contemporary example). What is the point?
In Germany and many other European countries people would watch Passion Plays, which depicted the story of Jesus' crucifixion. The story was told in a way that pointed blame at the Jews. Then people would go out and carry out pogroms. Is that merely an expression of free speech?
I think the biggest problem is that American Conservative Christians have experienced a crisis of confidence in their own faith and religious tradition. If they truly believed in the power of the Gospel, why would they call in the state to force people to acknowledge the importance of the Ten Commandments and other such things? Why would they spend less time proclaiming their positive message and more time denegrating others in a negative fashion? The only explanation I can come up with is that they no longer have confidence in the persuasive power of their message, and thus feel the need to resort to mudslinging, state support, and other such supplemental means. It is a discredit to them and to the faith they claim to adhere to.
The Tomb of Jesus has indeed been discovered!
February 27, 2007 12:01
Yes, that is right, it clearly is the tomb of Jesus - in the sense that it has the ossuary or 'bone box' of someone named Jesus who was the son of someone named Joseph. But of course, this is rather misleading in English, since for English speakers Jesus is a unique name beloning to a particular Jesus. But in actual fact, the name we know of as 'Jesus' is simply 'Joshua' and as such was quite a common name. In other words, what is beyond a shadow of a doubt is that we have a tomb in the Jerusalem area where someone named Josh whose dad was named Joe was buried. What are the chances? It is hard to say, but I would be surprised if "Joshua son of Joseph" was any rarer in Judah in this period than "Bill son of Bob" is in America today. The probability of this precise combination of names has been calculated at one in 600, which means that we should not only not be surprised at such a find, but should expect to find several more tombs with these names before all is said and done. The documentary web site is nevertheless worth visiting, since it includes enough information that an intelligent reader can get a sense of what is actually fact and what is hype.
How concerned should Christians be? Not very, but not for the reasons many are giving. Christians should not take the approach of dismissing archaeological evidence because of what the Bible says, taken literally, contradicting it. If you are unwilling to accept any evidence that runs counter to your beliefs, that is not a sign of sincere faith but of extreme stubbornness and credulity, and a severe unwillingness to learn. Every time history or science comes up with something that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible there are debates and controversy. Most of us have now resigned ourselves to the language used in Joshua about the sun standing still being cosmologically inaccurate (to say the least). Yet so many who cope with the reinterpretation of that text get upset again and again, each time something new is discovered, and never learn the overarching lesson. The Bible is neither a history textbook nor a science textbook.
This is not to say that Christians ought to believe every hyped-up headline the media throws at them. The place to look for answers is not the media. It is not random pages on the internet. One should consult reputable historians, scientists, Biblical scholars and theologians based at universities of repute or other similar academic institutions. If people in general would seek out reputable information, hype and controversy would not get the attention it does. But who am I kidding? While writing this, one of my students sent me an e-mail about how Microsoft and AOL are merging, and if I forward the e-mail I will get lots of money. Is it any surprise that informing the public, including Christians, of accurate information about history, science, the Bible and other topics is at best an uphill struggle, and at worst a losing battle?
In the end, I doubt many if any Christians living today would say they believe that God is going to literally reassemble their old dry bones and put together all the original molecules from their bodies. If so, then the Romans were right to burn the bodies of Christian martyrs in order to prevent them from being raised from the dead. Most Christians are more inclined to follow Paul in thinking of a "spiritual body" that does not require the original materials, and may well not be made of the same "stuff" at all. In that case, however, the question of what happened to the body of Jesus is a genuinely separate question from whether Jesus raised him from the dead. If Jesus had been denied burial altogether and thrown to the dogs (as has in fact been claimed by at least one historian), would that prevent the resurrection? Not only are these separate questions, but they are different sorts of questions. One is a question of history, the other a question of faith and theology. The two are not completely unrelated, but there is a distinction to be made, and it is an important one.
Here are some sites worth looking at on the topic of these recent sensational claims:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-tomb-titanic-talpiot-tomb-theory.html
http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2007/02/26/the-jesustalpiot-tomb-around-the-blogosphere/
http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/
Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast
February 28, 2007 12:24
I've just finished reading another interesting book relevant to those interested in science and religious beliefs, namely Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief
Once again there was an interesting convergence between my reading this book about our beliefs, and the mention on TV yesterday that con artist Peter Popoff is back. Asking what in our evolutionary history and our biological makeup leads us to draw conclusions, evaluate and accept or reject arguments and evidence, connect experiences, and so on, is not only appropriate but important and fascinating.
Wolpert introduces the subject gently, focusing on concrete examples and studies showing how evidence contrary to beliefs we already hold is often rejected, and how when presented with two pieces of evidence we instinctively focus on the evidence supporting beliefs we already hold (see e.g. pp.20-21). The way in which we incorporate new information into our belief systems and worldviews is not straightforward, by any means, and we are probably all much less open minded than we would like to believe.
When treating the topic of religious beliefs, it is important to note that Wolpert focuses on what may be called "belief that...", i.e. assent to certain propositions. Such beliefs are indeed a part of any religious tradition and religious worldview, and when it comes to propositional beliefs, religious believers are indeed susceptible to criticism for often maintaining adherence to propositions for which there is strong evidence to the contrary. Presumably that is why Peter Popoff can make a comeback - people so badly want to believe in the miracles and healings he claims to do that his exposure as a fraud can be explained away (as can one's own failure to experience the promised miracle even after sending him thousands of dollars).
Many religious believers understand faith/belief to mean assent to propositions without evidence, or even against the evidence, but it is also important to note that belief can also be understood in Tillichian terms as "ultimate concern". Our propositional beliefs ought, from a purely religious perspective, be open to revision. The Book of Job tells the story of someone who shared with his contemporaries the overly-simplistic view of God and rewards/punishments that still prevails in some circles today, that the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer. The story's resolution comes when God appears to address Job and his friends, and says that he is not pleased with the way the "friends" sought to defend traditional propositions about God, but is more pleased with Job's willingness to question them in light of experience. If our propositional beliefs are based on a literalistic reading of Scripture and/or are not open to revision in light of new information and circumstances, then we are in a seriously problematic and perilous situation: no one, not even God, is allowed to teach us anything!
One reason why science has a hard time persuading us to change our minds about things is that science (contrary to the common misperception) does not simply accord with common sense. On the contrary, much of science's conclusions run counter to common sense. That objects can attract one another in a vacuum (i.e. gravity), that the earth moves, that organisms adapting over time can eventually end up looking and being radically different when all we see are seemingly static organisms around us (this is comparable to the way we see languages as they are spoken today, so that it is hard to imagine that a modern, apparently static language such as French or Italian, could have evolved from the common ancestor Latin). If we bring quantum physics into the discussion, common sense gets thrown out much more radically! Science's conclusions are often extremely counterintuitive, and it is not because of common sense that they are accepted or rejected in the scientific community. It is because of evidence.
Many religious believers have taken refuge in postmodernism, suggesting that no evidence can clearly determine a conclusion: everything is interpretation, everything is perspective. This seems unpersuasive, because it suggests that there are only two options, all or nothing. The truth is that in history, in science, in Biblical studies, in whatever field one might mention, some things will be certain, some will be probable, and some will be genuinely uncertain. But radical uncertainty is not a necessary implication of either modern science, or modern philosophy, or of anything else. Some religious believers will also take the appreciation of myths and stories in our postmodern setting as an excuse to remain immature in their faith - at the stage that Ricoeur calls the first naivite. Maturity, however, only comes with the second naivite: with having questioned and thought critically about one's immature beliefs, and having come to appreciate them in a genuinely different and deeper way after having had their absoluteness challenged. Science is a wonderful tool in helping religious believers reach maturity, because many religious believers hold to propositional beliefs the factuality of which is at best far from certain, and in some cases evidently untrue. Science can help get us to adolescence, a necessary stage in maturing - but quite obviously not the final one, a point to which we must return shortly.
Scripture-oriented religions have a tendency to get stuck at the point in the development of human thought at which their Scriptures were completed. The Judeo-Christian tradition had got beyond the multiple gods of storm, of sea, of fertility, to the insight that all of these stem from one and the same source. This is a remarkably important insight, one that made a positive contribution to the development of science, and indeed could be said to have gotten there first! But having realized that our ideas of God developed over time, often integrating not only new spiritual and theological information but also new information about the world around us, why should we stop and be content with a concept of God that simply rolls the various deities of polytheism into a single God but leaves it at that? Aren't we still viewing the world in the same way, treating storms and earthquakes as signs of divine favor, just now of a single God whose reason for punishing us is moral rather than merely capricious? It is a help to religion that science can show us meteorology and relieve us of the need to interpret every wind and wave that does us harm as a divine action. On the other hand, acknowledging that some things just happen appears, from Wolpert's research, to be absolutely one of the hardest things for human beings to believe. We instinctively seek meaning in events, causal explanations, and we are apparently alone in the animal kingdom in doing so.
Wolpert's book shows that all sorts of beliefs, but in particular religious beliefs, are expressions of perspectives that are rooted in our biology and more specifically in our brains. I found myself wondering whether and to what extent it is then possible to view the world differently. I certainly seem to have been able to get beyond looking for causes of last year's hailstorm that are anything other than meteorological, however tempting it might be to believe that God wanted to give me a new roof, or perhaps punish the insurance company. Evolutionary biology shows that we have certain tendencies, but what impresses me most is that we can actually overcome some of our tendencies. It is here that religion is to be appreciated: our instincts regularly drive us towards self interest and self-preservation, and yet often times (because of our beliefs!) we may set aside our natural instincts of and act in ways that may even be heroic.
Religion, at least as I view it, is about transcendence. In denying the existence of the gods of the nations, we may actually have set ourselves up to ignore the realities to which such language is a symbolic pointer. Things like cultures are genuine instances of transcendence - anyone who has felt abhorrence at something in their own culture and sought to change it will know that it is not merely something that can be changed on an individual level. It is something that grabs hold of individuals and refuses to let them go, possessing them like a demon and potentially leading them to do evil that were it simply a case of individual behavior they might never have consented to. I still find helpful, whatever their shortcomings, Rudolf Bultmann's writings about demythologization. If we simply peel away and cast aside certain beliefs on the literal/factual level, we may be taking the wrong approach. Rather, it is best to ask what insight into the human experience a story offers, and then to ask how we may re-express that insight in the context of our worldview today, which certainly will incorporate scientific information and perspectives, but need not be limited only to what science can tell us. It is to Wolpert's credit that, even though he is certainly a skeptic of religion (and not merely of specific religious beliefs or affirmations), he gives due space to those who do not find religion and science to be fundamentally in conflict (see pp.212-216 for both perspectives).
Religion, for some, is about beliefs, and holding to them at all costs, often seeming extremely arrogant in the process. For others, religion is about almost precisely the opposite: that we do not know, that we see in a mirror darkly, that we are dependent on something and someone greater than ourselves, that our human perspective is incapable of explaining and understanding it all. For those of us of this latter perspective, science is not a threat to our faith. On the contrary, it confirms to us how much we still have to learn, and at the same time it awes us with new and deeper understandings of some of what had once been simply mysteries.
Wolpert's conclusions are admirably balanced and fair. He states (pp.218-219) that, having seen the benefits of religious beliefs in his son's life, he would never try to persuade him to abandon those beliefs. His one exception to a willingness to allow people to hold whatever beliefs they choose "but with a fundamental provision that those beliefs must be reliable if they lead to actions that affect the lives of other people" (p.219). I would go one step futher, and suggest that we need to find ways of helping religious believers think critically about their propositional beliefs, their doctrines and dogmas, while also understanding that disproving and changing one's mind about such matters does not (or at least need not) represent a loss of one's faith. Faith, in the Biblical tradition, is an attitude of trust and dependence, and not first and foremost assent to propositions, incredible or otherwise. It is the same challenge professors meet in every classroom - to help students realize that they can distinguish between their beliefs and their own selves, and that in daring to question and think critically about their beliefs and viewpoints they are not being untrue or unfaithful to their own selves, or for that matter to God.
Wolpert's final conclusion is wonderful, and worth quoting at least in part here: "Religious and mystical beliefs will continue for the foreseeable future to be held by millions of people, not only because mysticism is in our brains, but because it gives enormous comfort and meaning to life...We have to both respect, if we can, the beliefs of others, and accept the responsibility to try and change them if the evidence for them is weak or scientifically improbable. The loss of religious beliefs could have very serious consequences, and so could the enforcement of those beliefs on others. It is the action based on beliefs that ultimately matters, and respect for the rights of others is fundamental" (p.220).