atheism

The Science Debate

Frank

A few weeks ago I attended a debate between a local pastor and an engineer from the local “Freethinkers” organization.  The topic of the debate was  “Does Science Confirm the Bible?” but this was more strictly defined at the event as- can the biblical account of creation be supported by biological science? (in other words: evolution versus creation) I was eager to attend as both an engineer and a Christian and as a wannabe scholar who dabbles in apologetics.

I have read some books and articles trying to reconcile science and the Bible but I had never actually seen it debated in person with specific points and counterpoints, watching the debaters think on the fly versus reciting prepared statements.  And I had just finished reading Finding God in the Waves by Mike McHargue (aka Science Mike), so such questions were fresh in my mind.  I went in with the mindset of asking myself how I would answer the questions, or what my rebuttals would be.  I also wanted to have an open mind because in my limited experience atheists, agnostics, and skeptics have legitimate points of contention and their questions should be taken seriously.

The Q&A ran long so I missed the ending.  I don’t know if they actually declared a ‘winner’ or not, but in my opinion the winner was (drumroll)…. the skeptic, and it wasn’t close.

My biggest issue, and this is true with many books on this subject as well, was that the paster refused to debate the Bible on science’s terms.  What I mean by that is that a scientific claim is made and the Christian responds with a Bible quote.  Sure, that may win over the Christians who already have their minds made up, but there’s no reason for a skeptic to buy such an argument.  And the pastor dug himself into a deeper hole by claiming as his ‘science’ rebuttals cherry-picked quotes from scientists.

Yes, irreducible complexity is a compelling argument.  But that’s a metaphysical debate, not a scientific one, despite what proponents of Intelligent Design might claim.  And yes, there are many believers (Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project for one) who are also scientists or even experts in these fields.  But personal quotes do not prove anything other than the what the person quoted thought about something.  Scientific proofs require evidence, measurement, and observation.  And the Christian side of the debate seldom goes down that road.

But why not?  I think on one hand we’re afraid of where that road may lead (see criticisms of scholars like Pete Enns for example).  But I think more importantly, we refuse to admit that the Bible is not a science book.  Our personal doctrines and theologies have elevated the Bible to “Holy” status and therefore is objectively true from a scientific, historical, archeological, biological, anthropological… you name it, perspective.  There is no lens through which to view the Bible as ‘not true’.  The problem  then is how we define truth.  Is it true that the earth was created in six days, or rather does that account reveal truth about who God is? Is it true that there was a literal Adam and Eve that lived in the Garden of Eden, or does their fall reveal truth about the sin-condition of the world?

In grad school I took a class called “The Philosophy of Physics” as one of the last electives I needed to knock out before I could get my degree.  The class was essentially a quantum physics class but without the math.  We discussed the philosophical implications of string theory, the multiverse, and quantum pairing.  And believe it or not the class actually strengthened, not hurt, my faith.  There was more “truth” debated in that course than I think I’d get in any ‘creation science’ class.  We need to be willing to ask ourselves hard questions.

I also think Christians are afraid of admitting they don’t have all the answers.  Maybe you’ve heard the Bible described as “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth” as if that was its only value.  When we look at the Bible in such a way, we insist it must have all the answers to every question.  When science discovers something new, we simply don’t know how to fit that new discovery into our worldview.

Because of the above reasons, Christians struggle to understand that faith and science do not have to agree.  There have been volumes written on this subject- here is just a recent example- so I won’t get into this more deeply, but it is perhaps the most important point.  Today is not only Earth Day, but also the day organizers have set aside to ‘March for Science’.  The driving concern of that march is that science has been politicized (it long has been) and that the current political powers have been dubbed ‘anti-science’ largely because of holding to biblical ‘truth’ over scientific truth.  Political decisions are being made under the assumption that the Bible is a science book therefore global warming can’t be real, evolution is a hoax, and so on.

But the Bible stands on its own terms.  It doesn’t need science to be proven.  In fact, it’s not our job to prove God, he can stand on his own.  So let’s stop approaching all of this with antagonism- science, politics, objective truth.  The only “proof” we need is our love for one another, “by this everyone will know” we are disciples (John 13:35)

Defeating Death

Frank

Today, I’m continuing my Avengers theme with a post that has been percolating in my head for a long time. Warning, there be spoilers ahead!

So far I have covered Iron Man and the Hulk. But today I want to key in on possibly the most powerful character to appear in ‘The Avengers’ movie. Did I mention there would be spoilers?

I figure just about everyone has seen the Avengers, having grossed more than a billion dollars, so you’ve had your opportunity.

At the end of the first credits sequence (the animated one, not the traditional scroll) we are introduced to a character who is warned that to take on Earth and the Avengers is to “court death.” The character then turns and smiles at the camera. No, it’s not Hellboy or the Red Skull as those in the audience less nerdy than me speculated (hey, Marvel, just seeing the reactions online tells me you need to do some work post-processing to make this guy purple, not red!). But is instead the character Thanos.

That name doesn’t mean much to the casual fan, but to those of us who have been paying attention, we have been anticipating his introduction since 2010 when the Infinity Gauntlet was shown off at the San Diego ComicCon as one of the Marvel movie props. The Gauntlet later showed up in the movie ‘Thor’. So even though I knew he would be making an appearance in ‘The Avengers’ I still got chills when I heard those words, “court death,” because I knew exactly what that meant. You see, Thanos has an obsession with death, even “courting” a woman who is the personification of death in the comic book universe. Thanos also makes sense as an adversary in the movie universe because his first story in comic books involved his pursuit of the Cosmic Cube (called the Tasseract in the movie). He later rose to fame in the 90’s through the mini-series The Infinity Gauntlet and its many spin-off stories. For more on Thanos, check out this write-up from Comic Book Resources and also his wikipedia page.

So far, we know that he won’t the villain in either Iron Man 3 (who will be the Mandarin, played by Ben Kingsley- seriously, how cool is that!) or Thor 2 (who has not yet been identified, but execs have been explicit it will not be Thanos). So Marvel studios have their work cut out for them to introduce this character and give him a meaningful arc.

Which brings me back to the Infinity Gauntlet and the real subject of this post. (for more on the Gauntlet, check out the wikipedia page) You see, there isn’t yet a character in the movies who can stand toe-to-toe with Thanos. The Silver Surfer was instrumental in taking down Thanos in the Infinity Gauntlet storyline, but the rights to that character are still owned by Fox because of his appearance in ‘The Fantastic Four’. So that leaves us with the Surfer’s partner in that story, Adam Warlock. (The golden person behind Thanos with the red cape above; again, check out his wikipedia page) Will he be somehow introduced into the Marvel movie universe? I sure hope so.

So what does Warlock, the Surfer, and Thanos have to do with the subject matter of this blog (“Public Christianity” in case you forgot)? Well personally, I have always been intrigued by Warlock’s character, from his introduction as a man-made “perfect human” called simply “Him” all the way through his first death (more on this in a minute) and up to his adventures following his defeat of Thanos. About that first death… Adam Warlock has a bit of a God-complex. So much so that in order to save the people of “counter earth” he allowed himself to be crucified. By the power of the Soul Gems (one of the baubles on the Infinity Gauntlet- see how this all ties in?) he rose himself from the dead and a cult religion would later rise up to worship him (and try to take over the universe, but that’s another story).

In my comic reading peak in the 90’s, I loved to read both Warlock and the Silver Surfer. They complemented each other perfectly. Though the silver sentinel was conceived as a Christ-like cosmic figure when he was introduced in the 60’s, he is written in more of a philosophical tone. Warlock, on the other hand, because of his background is written as much more theological. So when paired together to take on some cosmic foe, this often led to very deep and worthwhile conversations.

Now I am anxiously anticipating how this may be handled on the silver screen, especially after (in my opinion) the Silver Surfer wasn’t given his full due in the Fantastic Four movie. And all the bluster about Loki pontificating about the weakness of humanity and the slavery of freedom, coupled with the writer’s open atheism, led some to denounce ‘The Avengers’ as anti-Christian and secular. So is it possible that the movies would dare take on a character whose main story arc involves being crucified, buried, and risen from the dead? If the Avengers have any hope of defeating Thanos, we better hope so.

Something’s Missing

Frank

“And I don’t know how to fix it” -John Mayer, Something’s Missing

Earlier this month, the British Humanist Association launched a campaign with banners on the side of buses saying “There’s Probably No God. So Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life” implying that a life of faith can’t be enjoyed. The numbers support this I guess. According to the speech kicking off the campaign, polls show 30-40% of people in the UK and 60-65% of youth are “non-religious” again implying that 60-70% of everyone else and 35-40% of their kids must be miserable. Of course that’s not their message. Much like the statement in the Washington State capital during Christmas, the message is that it’s ok to not be religious.

But it’s the implication of a miserable existence for the religious that really gets me. We don’t do any favors by projecting an image of super-piety by planting hedges around our convictions. Perhaps you can relate to some of these: no dancing, women can’t wear pants and skirts have to be a certain length, rock and roll is from the devil, et cetera, et cetera. My favorite example of this is the character of Ned Flanders in The Simpsons. He’s about as religious as anyone can be and while he’s far from miserable (okely–dokely!), the lifestyle he portrays is far from attractive to a non-believer. In one episode, he offers the Simpson kids “nachos, Flanders style!” which consist of Ritz crackers, cottage cheese, and a slice of cucumber. He doesn’t carry insurance because he considers it a form of gambling.

Is Ned Flanders an accurate depiction of a Christian? In some circles, sadly he is. But I don’t think this is what Jesus intended. “I came that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (Jn 10:10) Earlier in the Gospel of John we’re told this about Jesus, “from the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.” (Jn 1:16) Peter wrote that, “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness.” (2 Pt 1:3) Psalm 103 reminds us that the LORD “satisfies your desires with good things.” (Ps 103:5) The psalmist also tells us that if you “delight yourself in the LORD, he will give you the desires of your heart.” (Ps 37:4)

That all sounds nice, but what does it look like in our lives? I believe what Paul wrote of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 describes what this should look like. “[T]he fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” (Gal 5:22-23) Love, joy peace, patience, kindness… does that sound like a miserable life to you? Isn’t this the life that Jesus promised us when he set us free from the slavery of our sinful nature? Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. From this list, is there anything missing that you’d want more?

No, if you reject God you can’t relax and “enjoy life” because you can’t have the above without Him. And without the sacrifice of Jesus as God’s only Son, both human and divine, not only can we not have those fruits of the Spirit but we are also destined to a life enslaved to sin. And that is worth worrying about.

The Culture War Never Ends

Frank
I didn’t get as far as I wanted with my ‘Culture War’ posts. There are still a lot of topics still to be covered, but instead of regurgitating a stream of posts in a mad dash to meet a deadline I’ll post those when I get the chance. I’m going to start using labels for my posts too, so topics can easily be found.

That said, the Culture War isn’t over just because Christmas is. Sure, there were the typical battles over public Nativity scenes, vandalized decorations, and so on. In the Washington State Capitol, for example, atheists placed a proclamation against organized religion and belief in God in general next to their Nativity. What rubs me wrong the most, is how the atheist argument relies on belittling the religious by claiming that “reason” comes to the conclusion that there is no God. In other words, faith in God is unreasonable. But I prefer this instead, “A fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14:1)

That argument is repeated in a series of billboards that are beginning to spring up, intentionally coinciding with the holidays.
But like I said, just because Christmas is over doesn’t mean that the Culture War is over. Michael Newdow (you might remember him for suing to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance) is suing over the oath to be taken by President-elect Barak Obama, which will be taken with a Bible closing with the words “so help me God”. This is his third lawsuit over the presidential inauguration so the lawsuit isn’t taken very seriously. Neither the ACLU nor the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ, known from the radio show Jay Sekulow Live) make any mention of this suit on their home pages (follow the links on the right).
What’s interesting though, is the motivation for the suit. As quoted from the article:

Newdow and other plaintiffs say they want to watch the inaugural either in person or on television. As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.

“Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny,” according to the lawsuit.

I’m a recovering addict, so should I sue the Super Bowl for their Budweiser ads because I feel stigmatized? Or as a Christian, don’t I feel excluded by most television programming that espouses worldly values contrary to my own? Should I sue NBC or the FCC?
It was debated after Obama’s victory whether that would embolden the far-left. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. The past administration has done plenty to invigorate that base. But there is in increasing hostility towards religion that if it continues unchecked, could result in our own rights being curbed for the sake of Political Correctness.