Further Thoughts on Faith and Science

After posting "Thoughts on Faith and Science," I received this response, which I thought was worthy of reflection and address:

"You and the article's author are talking about two different things. However, to your point:

'The third is my understanding of miracles. While I don't think it is necessary that most of the miraculous stories in the bible be literally true (and I am not denying their possibility or existence either), I do think that the basic understanding of the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ be true in order for Christian faith to maintain any coherence. These miraculous events, if actually breaking any physical laws, would be 'one-off' affairs, meaning they would be non-replicable (sic) and therefore untouchable to scientific investigation.'

This is what makes science and religion completely incompatible. Science encompasses all things and for something to lie outside the realm of science means that they are at odds on a fundamental level. Merely the existence of some supernatural being (and even there, in the very word supernatural, implies incompatibility with natural science) already defies the very idea of science, much less that this being could pass part of itself into an impossible child (for humans) who then subsequently dies and comes back to life with no outside intervention after a much-too-long period of time.

A miracle may be a miracle in the sense that it is impossible to explain by our current understanding or knowledge. This is fine and compatible with science. But if you step outside the realm of science - 'untouchable to scientific investigation' - then that is where you can no longer the idea of a miracle with science. Fundamentally.

You can argue that the incarnation was poetic and metaphorical, that the death was not a death but some coma that was misinterpreted as death, that the resurrection was a recovery from this coma (perhaps with outside aid, despite what the bible says), and I will buy every bit of it. That is completely compatible with science. But to say that it's a 'one-off' and 'untouchable to [science]' is not acceptable to science." - Mr. Chen, Posted on Facebook, September 11, 2015.

Below are my musings in response to the points of contention Mr. Chen brought up:

Thanks for your thoughts Mr. Chen! I apologize for the late reply as I've been pretty swamped with schoolwork recently.

You're right, my response was really more geared toward comments I had seen in the posting from which this article was taken, and not to the article itself. Another poster made a great summery of the article in his comment [posted on Facebook, above these], with which I generally agreed (especially in its application to political ideas).

I've had some time to reflect on your points and they made me realize that my statement that miraculous events are “untouchable to scientific investigation” isn't exactly true. They may not be repeatable in a lab, but they are subject to historical, anthropological, and archaeological investigation, which are still branches of science. I think, then, a reasonable conversation about events like the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus must rest on what we know about these areas.

However, I've also noticed that we're operating on a number of assumptions regarding natural science that we should probably take a look at. First, we are assuming God would need to break the laws of physics in order for these events to happen. This may very well be true, but I wonder if there are other theological interpretations where this isn't necessary. It seems to me that while the standard laws of physics would be largely deterministic in regards to what events are possible, the nature of many quantum events seem to be more probabilistic in nature. This opens some pretty fantastic possibilities for what would still be regarded as natural phenomena. Since I'm not an expert in these areas, these are just my musings as I read more about them, but I find their implications very intriguing for discussions about God or miracles.

I also question your statement that “science encompasses all things.” I would argue that science encompasses our reasonable inferences regarding subjects we can observe. To truly “encompass all things” we must have knowledge of every bit of information in the universe, and I don't think our species will ever make it to that point naturally. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but based on what I currently know, I think we will always have more to discover.

Perhaps the best analogous event to what we are talking about (and to which we can both agree actually happened) is the Big Bang. Again, I am not an expert in this field, so I may very well be off in my understanding of it. However, my understanding is that the current laws of physics break down in the moments immediately following and surrounding the singularity which signaled the beginning of the event. This could have multiple implications. If the laws of physics can break down once, why can they not do it again? One may very well call this event miraculous, for lack of a better term.

The problem is, many Christians are tempted to leave it at that, with a definition of miracles resting in ignorance rather than what we know. To me, the only relevant God is a revealed God. This means that the true importance of any miraculous (or otherwise unexplained) event rests entirely in revelation. For Christians, this revelation rests primarily in the Incarnation and in the experiences of those who wrote scripture. I think such revelations are naturally possible (without breaking any physical laws) since, much like other quantum events, the nature of the mind also appears to be less deterministic and more probabilistic.

Now, I recognize that allowing for the possibility of miracles does not necessarily mean their certainty. This is where I think historical, anthropological, and psychological study becomes important for their investigation. But the purpose of my response here isn't really to delve into their certainty (which would probably take a bunch more posts); it's mostly just to show the reasonableness of their possibility.

Finally, just to address the coma theory. While as possible as just about anything else, even that would be very unlikely. A man who had just been beaten severely, crucified, stabbed in the side, and left for dead in a cave with probably very little oxygen, and no food or water; would be just about as unlikely to get up, go on a walk and talk with people, as one who had actually been dead. Such an event would probably require Divine intervention. :D #science #religion #atheism #christianity #faith

Thoughts on Faith and Science

The paragraphs below consist of my response to an article in the New Yorker titled, “All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists.” Actually, this is less a response to the article (which advocates for critical thinking, a position with which I heartily agree), and more a response to many of the comments after the article which seemed to defend the position that faith and science are incompatible (a position with which I heartily disagree).

There have been many mainstream and well respected scientists (including physicists) in the past century who have been religious and who still provided valuable and solid scientific insights, including Charles H. Townes (inventor of the laser), Kenneth R. Miller, Tom Mcleigh, Russel Stannard, etc .

I think perhaps the key is avoiding belief in a "god of the gaps," or a definition of God that is defined by what we don't know. Naturally, as scientific knowledge advances, such a god would inevitably retreat. It is this type of god Richard Dawkins argues against in his book, The God Delusion. Ironically, he uses the argument against the "god of the gaps" as an atheist argument, when Christian theologians (Henry Drummond, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc.) have argued against such a definition for centuries.

My understanding of God ultimately derives from the Incarnation of Christ, in that His (or Its, for that matter) presence consubstantiates the physical cosmos. This means the presence of God exists in and all around the cosmos, even extending into nothingness (a God who doesn't exist being the same as That which does), both personal and impersonal. In this point of view, deriving better understandings of the natural world through science helps us better understand the workings of Creation. I find no contradiction with this in scripture, primarily for three reasons:

The first is that many of the miraculous stories found in the Bible are best understood poetically, prophetically, and allegorically. This isn't a new or heterodox position, as it was advanced by St. Clement of Alexandria as early as the second century. This means you don't have to believe in literal talking snakes in order to be a Christian. The creation story is best understood as a poetic myth describing the magnificence of God's creation, and the saga of Adam and Eve is best understood as a conflict which is played out in every human being's life, and not just a "first couple." Please understand, I do not use the word "myth" to mean "fable" or "falsehood", but rather "narrative truth communicated through symbolic means." I firmly believe that some truths cannot be communicated literally, and often story is the best way to transcend cultural and linguistic barriers.

The second is in my understanding regarding the nature of scripture itself. Many people confusingly call it the word of God, though this term is reserved in the New Testament only for Christ himself, and their theology often reflects an unintentional conflation of the two. Perhaps a better term for scripture should be "words about God." This means that all scripture, while I believe it is Divinely inspired, useful in a variety of contexts, and a reliable witness to God’s work in the world, is still humanity's response to the revelation of God rooted in the Incarnation. So of course there are textual variances, scribal mistakes, redactions and a variety of genres testifying to the very human need for creative communication (through the use of myth, poetry, song, parable, and symbol) beyond just the rote assertion of historical or scientific facts. This does not diminish the truth found in Christ (at least for the Christian).

The third is my understanding of miracles. While I don't think it is necessary that most of the miraculous stories in the bible be literally true, I do think that the basic understanding of the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ be true in order for Christian faith to maintain any coherence. These miraculous events, if actually breaking any physical laws, would be "one-off" affairs, meaning they would be non-replicable and therefore untouchable to scientific investigation. It may even be that they do not “break” physical laws, so much as their unique occurrence means they do not factor into the formulation of physical laws based on observable, repeatable phenomena.

This is where it becomes a matter of faith based on the testimony of the gospels. This should not be confused with "blind belief," which I define as intellectual assent for no reason. Instead, it should be defined as a radical, life-changing trust in Christ that is so essentially transforming to a person and community that they become the Body of Christ participating in the redeeming of the cosmos, today.

The above isn't necessarily meant to convert anyone to my point of view and it touches on a lot of elements that deserve a much more extensive treatment. It is simply meant to demonstrate that a rational, scientifically-minded human being can still exhibit faith in God.

 #science #religion #atheism #christianity #faith

Kim Davis, the Courts, and Homosexuality

If you've been following the news lately, you'll see that Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, has been at the center of it. She has repeatedly refused to issue any marriage licenses in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision which affirms the rights of same-sex couples to marry. She has cited her Christian beliefs, and stated that "God's law is higher than man's laws."

Now, if you've read my other posts, you'll see that I am a Christian too. But I completely disagree with her on this issue, both on theological and legal grounds. Below is a link to the New York Times article concerning her position, and my thoughts on the issue as a whole.

"Kentucky Clerk Denies Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, Defying Court" - via New York Times

Regardless of her personal convictions, she is an elected official of a secular government which has affirmed same-sex marriage. If she cannot in good conscience do her job, then she should resign. But by refusing to issue licenses, she is breaking the law, and therefore should be punished by the law.

She is claiming God's authority in this issue, while ignoring both Romans 13 (that we should obey earthly authority) and the fact that many Christians (including me) would disagree with her interpretation of what exactly God's law entails. The last time I checked, it entailed loving God with everything I am, and loving others as much as I love myself.

I don't know about her, but I'm pretty busy just trying to do those two things. Even if her interpretation of God's law were correct (and I don't think it is), she has no legal or biblical right to press her interpretation of that law on others.

The Question of Biblical Homosexuality

In response to the above NYT article and requests for clarification on my position, I am focusing more about the applicability of God's law than its substance. What I mean is that, we need to be careful when we apply Levitical laws to Christians (or to the rest of the world) today (in this case, Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13). While many of the laws dealt with moral issues, which one can make a universal case for, many did not. Many were designed to separate Israel from its neighbors, others were designed to create a more liberating form of government (again, compared to Israel's neighbors), and still others were designed to establish Israel as God's chosen people.

While the people of Israel still exist, the theocratic state of Israel no longer does and neither do the institutions which support the kingship, temple priesthood, or state prophetic office. I would argue that this nullifies the laws which deal with these specific areas. Additionally, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah deal as much with hospitality and violence toward guests (cf. Judges 19) as sexual immorality (which, cited in Jude 1:7, is ill-defined).

To take it a step further, the Talmud states the only laws which apply to Non-Jews are the laws of Noah, based on his conduct and covenant in Genesis. Keep in mind, even that can be up for debate, since I believe the Christian community establishes its own understanding of this concept. But at least the basics of this understanding was upheld in the Jerusalem Council among the apostles, which is described in Acts 15. Their final decision on the issue (to which we are still bound, in my opinion) is best summarized in v. 29, and which includes “sexual immorality” or “fornication,” Whether this includes homosexual behavior or homosexual acts is debatable.

Now, in the NT, the relevant passages come from Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:-9-10, and 1 Tim. 1:10. I have heard many various interpretations of these. Some have related the same-sex acts between men to the ancient practice of adult men sleeping with boys, or in the context of temple prostitute (in which case, it's as much an issue of idolatry as anything). Whether this is really the author's intent, I'm not sure. I think it's open to interpretation, which is why we're having this discussion. My understanding is that these passages deal with the sex acts themselves, and not with a person's feelings. The whole idea of a person being either a homosexual or a heterosexual is a rather modern cultural invention. Most scientific research agrees that sexual orientation has a strong genetic factor. If this is true, then people cannot be judged for this predisposition.

And if God really does see homosexual acts as a sin, then this only finds relevance in the context of the grace of Christ. Obedience only comes through grace, and as an expression of our love for God and others. One cannot expect non-Christians to apply the Christian ethos outside of grace and love. In fact, to insist on such an approach undermines the Gospel.

Thoughts on Secular Government and the Falacy of a "Christian Nation"

A friend of mine recently tried to argue that this nation was started by Christians attempting to escape religious persecution and therefore start a Christian nation, that the founding fathers were Christian, and that at its heart this has always been a Christian nation. Below is my response to his claims:

Technically the Pilgrims, while escaping religious persecution, also came here to set up a British colony. They were loyal to the king and would probably have found the actions of their descendants 150 years later shocking, if not reprehensible.

Interestingly enough, the founding fathers envisioned our nation as a republic first, and a democracy second. This means that even if the people vote in a law which is in contradiction to the Constitution, it can be struck down. This doesn't stem from the LGBT community, but from Marbury v Madison in 1803, which was still during the time of our Founding Fathers.

And on a final note regarding the “Christian values” of the Founding Fathers. Perhaps the greatest philosophical foundation for democratic and secular government came from Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Both of whom were Deists, meaning they believed God created the world, but stepped back and hasn't intervened since.

In fact, Paine wrote a pamphlet called “The Age of Reason,” in which he vehemently attacked Christianity. Jefferson cut all the miracle stories of Jesus out of his New Testament, so that he could just focus on the teaching as he believed the rest was superstition and was generally against much organized religion. Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were also avowed Deists. There is also debate as to whether John Adams, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton held a middle ground between Christianity and Deism.

So to claim that this nation was founded as a Christian nation is highly debatable. But what is not debatable, is that Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Roman Catholics, and Deists all came together to found a nation where religious liberty is perhaps the most essential underlying principle. Christian ideals did indeed influence the Constitution, but that is a far cry from declaring the United States a Christian nation. Even in the “golden age” of the 1950's that so many desire to return to, we had the CIA working covert operations all around the globe which arguably directly contradicted these ideals. We still had drugs, prostitution, corrupt officials, betrayal, and hate in every city of the country. Simply tacking on the label, “Christian” doesn't undo that history.

Finally, Texas can vote whatever it likes into law. However, Article VI guarantees the Constitution as the law of the land, superseding any other law, whether among the states or by the federal government. This means that whatever Texas, or any other state, decides is law must conform to the Constitution, its articles, and its amendments (including those which establish the Judicial Review powers of the Supreme Court).

 Final Analysis and Additional Thoughts

To clarify my thoughts a bit more, I guess I'm not really sure if monogamous homosexual acts are in and of themselves, sin.

A straight forward reading of many translations of the NT seems to suggest this, as do traditional interpretations through the ages. However, the Greek is less clear than we'd like to admit, and the cultural assumptions surrounding these passages (which have arguably changed) are also less clear.

For me, this means I should err on the side of grace, after all I am nobody's judge in the end. I should show the love of Christ to everybody, try to live in a way that pleases Him, and trust that He's got me along the way. And that's the message I want to share with others.

But as far as Constitutional law goes, I think I have been clear, monogamous homosexual marriage is and should be legal for any and all citizens.

#KimDavis #ChurchandState #ConstitutionalLaw #homosexuality 

Musings on a Recent Article Concerning Gun Control in America

A friend of mine asked me to weigh in on the gun control issue, especially in reference to the attached article. I don't know why, as I'm pretty sure anything I say won't sway anybody. But, for the sake of rousing rabbles, here was my response (and the accompanying article which spawned the conversation).

This is a very interesting article that will hopefully help open a much needed conversation in Christian communities. However, it ignores some key considerations on both sides of the argument. Keep in mind, I'm relatively undecided on this issue, and the below points are not necessarily meant to sway the conversation in favor or against gun control, but instead are meant to make us think about other relevant factors theologically and practically in our society.

First, and this may be relatively minor, but this article ignores other legitimate uses for guns beyond hunting, such as sport. Many people enjoy skeet shooting, target practice, biathlons, trick shooting, cowboy shooting, etc. These are fun activities that have absolutely nothing to do with dealing death, yet the author claims that all guns are solely for doing just that. It is true that the concerns of a sport do not outweigh the death of thousands, but it is helpful to remind ourselves that even in a perfect society with no violence, there would still be a legitimate place for guns.

Second, this article ignores the obligation to defend others (beyond the “right” to defend ourselves). I honestly see the use of guns to defend the life of others as more legitimate than using guns to defend our own lives. When we use a gun to defend ourselves, we are saying in that moment, our life is more important than the lives of others. We have decided, at least for the fraction of a second it takes to pull a trigger, that the other person's humanity has been negated. We may rationalize this in terms of justice, but ultimately we have decided that our knowledge and power is so supreme in that moment that we can kill.

However, when we use a gun to defend others from oppression, we may very well be affirming God's care for the oppressed. Again, we are making a judgment call to dehumanize our enemy in some way, with the argument that they have done something (or will do something) sufficiently unacceptable that they deserve to die. This is still very dangerous and tricky ground, and I doubt that even the most level-headed individual can make such a judgment call perfectly

Thirdly, a little-known Constitutional note. If we not-so-subtly ignore the recent Supreme Court rulings to the contrary (District of Columbia v Heller - 2008, McDonald v Chicago - 2010) and consider the right to bear arms within the context of a well-regulated militia, then we have the following to consider. Not many Americans realize that all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 are part of the Reserve Militia under the Militia Act of 1903. If read in this context, I think someone could make the argument that every one of these males is required to own, learn to handle, and operate a gun. This is a bit of rabble rousing on my part. :) But if there's one constant to the gun debate, it's that people enjoy rousing rabbles.

Finally, this article (as well as many others) ignores perhaps the most tragic consequences of gun violence: that of the gun suicide. In fact, while there are 3.6 gun homicides out of every 100,000 people in this country, there are 6.3 gun suicides. Based on this figure alone, it would seem that gun suicide is a much greater problem in our nation than gun homicides or mass murders.

Our society has very little compassion for suicides, it is seen as a coward's way out, or even that a person has a right to make that choice concerning their own life. However, those who use such arguments have often never experienced the depths of despair and hopelessness which often accompany such decisions. We, as Christlike disciples, are to bring hope to the world. If we ignore this issue, we fail Christ. Not only that, but gun suicide is not simply a gun issue. While guns make it easier for those in despair to make that final leap, getting rid of them would not solve the problem.

Our mental health facilities are abysmal in this country. Our prisons have become our funny farms as we incarcerate people for being the wrong color, for being homeless, or even for being a bit strange in public. Pharmaceuticals push their products as the holy grails of neuro-chemical engineering, and when pills fail we would rather shove the “problem” off to a jail or prison where we don't have to think about them anymore. We incarcerate more people than any other nation on earth, both as a percentage of our population, and in real numbers. If this is the Land of the Free, we have the most unfree individuals of any nation on earth (and that is without addressing the burgeoning sex slave trade in this country).

Oh, and one final note. It appears that around 400,000 crimes are perpetrated per year with guns, while about 400,000 are stopped with guns (although I also read 2.5 million crimes are stopped each year by guns, but I doubt this high figure). This means that if we outlawed guns, there would be fewer gun violence crimes, but for those criminals who still find a way to get guns, there would be no law-abiding citizens to stop them.

Anyway, these are just some factors to consider. I think statistics can be manipulated, ignored, or highlighted for both sides of the issue. Theologically however, anytime we take a life, we are making a judgment call with such irreversible and grave consequences that I think such a call should be reserved for God only.

So those are my thoughts, what are yours inter-webs buddies?

"Making Guns Our God" by Mark Lockard via Ministry Matters

#GunControl #GunViolence #AmericanGuns