07/29/2009 - 

Ability to Comment Coming Soon

Assuming any readers of this average blog are still around, you will soon be able to comment—meaning that this blogger will get back to work and give you something to ponder. Hang in there.

In the meantime, here's something to contemplate:

The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith. But this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God, and secondarily in God's revelation in nature. Scripture proof on this point does not come to us in the form of an explicit declaration, and much less in the form of a logical argument. In that sense the Bible does not prove the existence of God. (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 21)

Seems that the second revelation has its place.

03/03/2009 - 

Hey, where'd you go?

Nowhere, but the transition to the new website has required hours spent elsewhere.

You'll see more Average Joe posts shortly and your comments (as usual) will be welcome. Bear with us as we work out the bugs. You'll see everything eventually and should find the site far more useful.

Thanks for your patience.

12/23/2008 - 

Dawkins' Book Alongside Bible in Hotels?

You've retreated into the solitude of your hotel room after a tiring day of travel and business. More pensive than usual on this occasion, the weightier matters of life come to mind. Instead of reaching for the remote, using your cell phone, or going online, you open the top drawer of the bedside nightstand.

Imagine your surprise to find Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion next to the Gideon Bible? Well, at least one person has suggested the dual offering.

If atheism is the antidote for all the world's religiously borne ills, why not place a book of cures in the hands of as many people as possible? And the privacy of a hotel room away from home might be just-right for reflection on the heavy stuff.

The Gideons International has distributed free Bibles for over 100 years. According to their website, they have placed or distributed more than 1.3 billion copies of the Scriptures in over 180 countries, and "Nowhere is the impact of sharing God’s Word more clearly illustrated than in the testimonies of changed lives that we receive almost daily." Videos on the site speak of newfound hope, freedom from drug addiction, and even averted suicides.

What would result from an—admittedly monumental—effort to emulate the Gideons' output? Maybe The God Delusion is not the best text for promoting the preeminence of atheism, but assuming there is such a tome, how would it impact readers? Can it be measured over time? Can it be tested by placing only Bibles in some hotels and a Dawkins/Dennett/Harris/Hitchens/Stenger book in others, and then switching off?

The larger question of Is-atheism-or-Christianity-better-for-the-world? looms, but for purposes of this post, let's assume we can pull off the Gideons/Dawkins test. What do you think the results would show?

11/17/2008 - 

Science in the New White House

Disclaimer: This is not intended as a political statement.

A recent article (Science in the Obama Era) summarizing president-elect Barack Obama's view on science said that Obama would "take scientific integrity seriously" and remove ideology from scientific issues.

Despite the article's obvious targeting (especially the comments section) of the current administration as antiscience by contrast, let's accentuate the positive. The article notes that Obama will take scientific integrity seriously "even if the verdict runs counter to his views."

Probably what comes to mind for most people when they see those words is global warming and stem cell research. Assuming Obama is sincere, then all scientifically minded people have reasons to believe that scientific advance can lead to truth that ultimately benefits humanity.

Global warming has been politically supercharged in recent years and stem cell research hasn't been much different. RTB scholars have commented on both issues (global warming, stem cell research).

It appears from this Average Joe's perspective that the monumental challenge lies in holding true to a bias-free, yet ethically guided advancement of science. Whew! How do you remove ideology, and whose ethics will guide scientists?

At a time of history that we can all point to as a sea change in the right direction regarding bias of one kind, let's hope that bias of another sort doesn't hinder progress for all of humanity.

Your thoughts?

10/27/2008 - 

Mental Illness not Acknowledged by Church?

There's no way to dress this one up. Here's the first paragraph of a recent report titled, "Church Pastors Dismiss Mental Illness."

In a study of Christian church members who approached their church for help with a personal or family member's diagnosed mental illness, researchers found that more than 32 percent were told by their pastor that they or their loved one did not really have a mental illness.

The problem was solely spiritual in nature, they were told.

Does such an apparently callous attitude provide evidence for atheists' claim that belief in the Christian God leads to all sorts of backward—even dangerous—thinking? Note that these are diagnosed mental illnesses, not merely supposed afflictions.

Also, the dismissive clergy have told people to stop taking their medication. The article cites other studies showing that people first seek clergy, rather than mental health experts, to help them in times of psychological stress. Gee, nice help.

From an atheistic perspective, you can imagine a pastor saying, "You can't trust secular science. You need to stand firm on God's Word. You're battling demons or perhaps you've got some unconfessed sin in your life."

Is that the best the church can offer?

Maybe this cynical view of mental illness stems from a reaction to various studies that espouse a genetic basis for "sinful" behaviors (alcoholism, homosexuality, adultery). We've explored the scientific and moral implications in this column before and many of your comments can be summarized thus:

Despite a biological explanation for objectionable behaviors, we are still morally responsible. We might be compelled by biology, but we're impelled by a God-given moral compass. We have a choice.

The Andrea Yates case comes to mind. You might recall the shocking news in 2001 of the Texas woman drowning her five children. (First a caveat: this Average Joe can't begin to understand what really happened there. It's a very complicated case.) Some of the volatile ingredients for disaster in that tragedy included: bad doctrine from an itinerant preacher, mental illness, failure to heed medical advice, and refusal to take medication.

Is it any wonder an atheist might see this current study and hearken back to the Yates case? This survey seems to feed the religion-is-dangerous mantra popularized by the new atheists.

Your thoughts?

10/01/2008 - 

Care to Worship at the Science Temple?

How's this for a house of worship: cathedral-style stained-glass windows patterned to show the cosmic microwave background radiation, a liturgy based on sounds of the big bang, and a creed.

Welcome to the Atheon, a temple designed by artist Jonathon Keats that opened September 27 in Berkeley, California (where else?). According to the host museum's website:

The Atheon is a secular temple devoted to scientific worship. Delivering spiritual fulfillment through exposure to the latest research in fields ranging from cosmology to quantum mechanics, the Atheon offers a nondenominational alternative to theocentric religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Our credo is to make faith rational.

What, exactly, is scientific worship? (Note that this is not a church of religious science or scientology.)

From the website it looks like there will be music as liturgy, a "canon for three cosmic voices titled, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'" That doesn't sound too bad and it's one of the greatest questions of all time.

Based on the description above it looks like a researcher might serve as a preacher of sorts, expounding on the latest scientific forays into the beginning of the universe. In fact, extract two phrases from the description and here's what you get: "Delivering spiritual fulfillment through exposure to the latest research in fields ranging from cosmology to quantum mechanics," and "Our credo is to make faith rational." Hey, that sounds like RTB.

What then do the congregants, if there are any, do? Is there an order of service? A recitation of commonly held beliefs? It sure looks like a faith-based community, but faith in who or what?

Keats doesn't really explain (at least not in the linked article) what he means by worship, but he does say that he's concerned about the schism between science and religion and that the temple might be a place for thinking and asking questions, in the hope that "common ground can be found."

It seems the more one reads about such efforts, the more need there is for a truly integrative model, such as the one proffered by RTB scholars. Other approaches, like Keats' science worship model, redefine religion—especially Christianity—and, hence, rob it of its power.

You can't help but recall the Scriptures in such instances.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (Romans 1:25)

It's never popular with non-Christians to quote Bible verses, but isn't the Bible validated over and over when human beings engage in such ventures?

09/25/2008 - 

And Now ... A Politics Gene

Genetics seems to explain everything these days.

Previous posts explored recent efforts to account for human sexual behavior, but now it really gets dirty. Few discussions can muster emotion faster than political exchanges, so please be advised that RTB does not endorse any particular candidate, party, or platform.

A popular article, "Political Views Driven by Biology," suggests that political beliefs stem (at least in part) from genetics. You might say that a person is hardwired to hold liberal or conservative views.

Researchers tested 46 Nebraskans who held strong political beliefs for responses to fear stimuli. They concluded that participants who scored high on stress tests also tended to support positions usually associated with conservatism; including military spending, the death penalty, school prayer, and the concept of biblical truth. The same group tended to oppose pacifism, gun control, gay marriage, and abortion rights.

It appears that people who are most alarmed by bloody or really gross images (large spider on someone’s face, a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots on it) tend toward conservatism and are therefore "built differently" than others. The thought is that this type of research might help those on opposing sides of the political spectrum to exercise tolerance toward others, given that biology has produced their beliefs.

See anything wrong with this picture? Uh, how about upbringing and influences throughout one’s life? One would think that parents, teachers, clergy, peers, books, TV, the Internet, and many other factors carry far more weight in the development of political beliefs than an evolutionary response to frightful images.

Also, regardless of one’s political stance, this kind of conclusion seems to disrespect human capacity to reason, and therefore to learn, grow, and change. And why test only a tiny group from a red state? This smacks of "this helps explain why those bigots believe that stuff. They can’t reason because they’re hardwired, so we might as well accept that fact."

Ouch. What do you think?

09/03/2008 - 

Adultery Gene?

You guys called it.

Several previous Average Joe posts explored the question of whether there was a genetic connection to homosexuality (here, here, and here). To paraphrase some of your responses, it didn't matter if science eventually detected a genetic origin for homosexuality: the biblical injunction stands. After all, science has uncovered a genetic connection to alcoholism, and might yet divulge a genetic basis for behaviors like fornication or adultery.

Swedish researchers report (Marital Crisis? Blame It on Male Genes) that a gene variant, allele 334, may explain "why some men are more prone to stormy relationships and bond less to their wives or girlfriends."Men with one or two copies of the gene behaved differently than those who lacked 334, and their relationships suffered accordingly. Those with two copies of allele 334 were twice as likely to have had a marital crisis as men without the gene.

Martin Ingvar, a professor of neurophysiology at Stockholm's Karolinska Institute, said that "These are original findings which shed light on the fact that all of our behaviours are influenced by both nature and nurture. Even complex, cultural social phenomens such as marriage are influenced by a person's genetic make-up."

What does this mean?

To be clear, the study identified bonding issues and not marital infidelity. But if the research holds up, what does it say about authentic human choices? One can imagine the "I can't help it, I'm hardwired"defense for adulterous behavior.

From a Christian perspective, why would a Creator endow some men with this gene and not others? For that matter, why would God equip people with any gene that manifests itself in behavior the Bible deems sinful?

One of the researchers cautions that the effect of the genetic variation is modest and cannot predict future behavior, but perhaps an atheist might see a reason to believe in naturalism. Nature gave us the genes, and we choose to express them the way we do because we're simply keeping our genes going. The notion of sinful behavior—a product of biblical morality—should be relegated to the wastebasket of tired ideas in favor of evolutionary preferences.

Your comments?

08/25/2008 - 

Does Naturalism Better Explain Hoaxes?

The recent Bigfoot hoax garnered enough public attention to warrant comment all over the Internet. A fascinating article titled, "Monsters, Ghosts and Gods: Why We Believe," cited several experts and their research in an attempt to explain why people believe in the paranormal (psychics, witches, telepathy, channeling) and in such creatures as the Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, or even the chupacabra.

Their analysis can be summarized by one comment: "Many people quite simply just want to believe."

One might expect that a good dose of education will cure the tendency. Not necessarily, according to study team member Rod Stark:

Perhaps amazingly, [paranormal beliefs] are not related at all to education. Ph.D.s are as likely as high school dropouts to believe in Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, etc."

Given that Christians believe in the supernatural, are they susceptible to paranormal beliefs? Baylor University sociologist Carson Mencken, whose national survey results will be published in 2009, said:

Among Christians, those who attend church very often (and are exposed to stigma and sacrifice within their congregations) are least likely to believe in the paranormal. Conversely, those Christians who do not attend church very often (maybe once or twice a year) are the most likely to hold paranormal beliefs.

Mencken also noted that naturalists do not believe in the paranormal because they don't believe in the supernatural. That brings to mind a question: Is naturalism the simplest—and therefore best—explanation for the paranormal? Occam's razor, which is considered a rule of thumb by which to analyze scientific theories, can be paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

Could a naturalist tell a Christian something to this effect?

Look, you believe in the supernatural so you have angels and demons in your theology. You may not believe in psychics or telepathy, but you have to sort these out one by one. I, on the other hand, can dismiss all belief in the paranormal or in fictional creatures as superstition that emerged during our evolution. My system is the simpler one, and therefore the most likely to hold scientific rigor.

What do you think?

08/06/2008 - 

No room for God in science? How about other disciplines?

In an age when tolerance is expected of rational people, those who find some ideas objectionable nevertheless attempt to put those notions in a positive light. Others refuse to denigrate any ideas although they personally do not believe them.

Naturalists often suggest that although belief in God is not a scientific concern (obviously RTB challenges that statement, but that's not the subject of this thread), it's legitimate to entertain the existence of God in other disciplines. Such a view is intended to communicate respect for religion—again, no one wants to be thought intolerant.

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, in a lengthy commentary about Expelled a couple of months ago said:

Science, by the very definition of the term, wants to invoke god or divine intervention as little as possible in seeking explanations for natural phenomena. Is that because … scientists hate religion? No. Rather it is because the whole point of science is to press to see how far natural causes and mechanisms can go in explaining what is going on around us. There is not much room in science, although there is in history, religion, philosophy or sociology class, for jumping up and down and invoking god as the explanation of anything and everything. Could such an explanation be true? Sure. Is it science? Hardly.

His words recall the view espoused by Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who proposed the NOMA (nonoverlapping magisteria) principle as a way to reconcile science and faith:

No such conflict [between science and religion] should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap. The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch clichés, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.

Many creationists see such statements as placatory gestures that cloak an intellectual snobbery. However, assuming that those who hold this view are sincere, how is it carried out?

Let's say a science prof at your local university goes to lunch with a history and a philosophy prof. The historian and philosopher believe in God and teach as much in their classes. They may not "jump up and down" about it, but instead offer logical reasons for their beliefs. How does the NOMA-believing scientist respond?

Here are several more questions:

1. When it comes to origins, does science ultimately trump all other disciplines? That is, if the religious magisterium posits God as the originator of the universe, of life, and of human beings, then how does the NOMA scientist acknowledge the worth of such of an endeavor?
   
2. Does the NOMA concept redefine religion as merely a human-invented ethical system devoid of an evidentiary basis? Christianity asserts that its "moral meaning and value" is grounded in the historical, empirical basis for the faith; in particular the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
   
3. Don't the historian, the sociologist, the philosopher, the theologian, and the scientist learn the same way? How does a lawyer argue a case? Isn't everybody (for the most part) studying a history of this, or a history of that? And don't they employ principles universal to all learners to achieve true knowledge?

Too many questions, yes. But in order to avert the charge that naturalists merely give the nod to religious adherents, it seems that answers might help.