@tribeplatypus
Tribe Platypus
  • Online Contributor
  • Groups & Associations
  • Clip File
  • World View

Age-0ld Debate about Faith & Science becomes annual college talk

9/28/2014

11 Comments

 
A recent New York Times Op-Ed piece entitled God, Darwin and My College Biology Class captures well the basic stumbling blocks for believers who encounter the tension between Faith and Reason or between Religion & Science. This is an age-old debate that has come to a fruitful balance for some. However, in recent years, particularly in the United states, there has been a push-back from Creationists, some Christians and other biblical fundamentalists who conflate the disciplines of Theology and Natural Sciences.

David P. Barish, the author of this Op-ed gives us an example of "The Talk" he give to his freshman biology class each year to help clear up the distinctions between the two disciplines. He and I agree that you can be a believer in Religion and not fail his biology class. We also agree that believers (in my case a Roman Catholic) need to do more on their part to reconcile the differences and point out the relationship between the two disciplines. Up until now it has been Scientists doing most of the heavy-lifting: pointing to what Science can and can not do at its very best with very poor examples (from my Roman Catholic perspective) coming from those who purport to represent Christian or other religious views. But I disagree with his ultimate conclusion and his basic attitude that as science progresses, religion and religious belief should diminish and disappear.
Toward the end of Prof. Barish's short piece, he lists three arguments that he feels make it more difficult for believers to maintain their position in the face of Science. The first is basically the argument of Intelligent Design. Here Barish, follows the thinking of the Deists (whom many of the U.S. forefathers either were or were certainly surrounded by people who thought like this). The argument is basically that just as we can infer a clockmaker by looking at how a clock is put together, so too we can look at creation or nature and see revealed an Intelligent Designer or Creator. Barish maintains that no such leap is really possible (for Science).

His second argument which is related to the first is about "centrality." Similar to the Copernican revolution when humans thought that the earth was the center of the universe and therefore humans too were the center, in light of today's modern understandings we know differently. Not only is the earth not the center of the universe, but broadly speaking, there is nothing remarkable about the human being that would objectively in the vast existence of all things in the universe lead us to place such emphasis on the human person.

Certainly from a Roman Catholic point of view, we do feel that we can learn something about the Creator from observing Creation. We also do believe that there is an inherent dignity in the human person who is "made in the image and likeness of God." Thus as Christians, we see revealed in Jesus Christ--true God and true man--something about the Creator and something about Creation.

Essentially, Barish is somewhat content with the detente about how Faith and Reason/Religion & Science are "non-overlapping magesteria." He becomes less comfortable because in fact these separate domains are not exactly non-overlapping. Even for a religious believer (or in fact especially for a religious believer) you cannot really "separate church and state." You really can't have a scientific universe and then try to "fit God in."

But this is precisely the point of difference between true believers who uphold science and those who are operating exclusively within the scientific realm (or exclusively within the religious realm). At no point in the true exercise of the discipline of Science would an Intelligent Designer emerge. This is as absurd as Kurt Vonnegut's joke that he firmly believed with the advances in science that one day there would be a photograph of God published in Popular Mechanics. Similarly, from a scientific point of view, there would be no objective proof that humanity had any central place in creation. We are ultimately atomic and subatomic parts. Stars and cosmic dust...yet ultimately on the level of physics no different than a beam of light or a mud puddle.

But as a Roman Catholic, I would also point out that it is just as easy and true to say that a baby came from sexual reproduction and the forces of natural selection, DNA, etc. (or more colloquially "the baby came from his/her parents") as it is to say that the baby was created by God. The materialist/objective view of the universe similarly may suppress a central value of human life, but it doesn't blot out the creative force of God who brings forth and sustains Creation from nothing. Both The Big Bang and evolution are quite sufficient for explaining a practical and empirical manifestation of the universe, but they do not supplant an existential, ontological, foundational premise upon which the the basics of faith, the general belief in the supernatural and transcendent, and ultimately the Good News revealed in what God the Father accomplishes through Christ in the Spirit.

As Dan Horan, OFM author and colleague of mine put in his own blog on Barish's piece:
I would love for him to sit down with Ilia Delio or Alister McGrath or John Polkinghorne or any other scholar who holds doctorates in both scientific fields and theology. Even those who haven’t earned advance degrees in both areas, those like John Haught or Elizabeth Johnson, have gone far out of their ways to not only take the natural sciences seriously, but to engage in complex and rigorous research that correlates the depth of the Christian theological tradition with the scientific discoveries Barash thinks “demolish” religious belief...
Likewise, just because one is learned in one field of research and scholarship (biology) does not mean that she or he is qualified to so definitively proclaim apodictic truths in another field (theology). If the theologians I named above, including myself, take seriously the work of biologists like Barash in his field, he should do likewise and take seriously our work. He might actually learn something.
Barish strays beyond his area of competency. Rather than rely upon the work of others (i.e. to rely upon, trust or to put faith in their work), he feels content to draw a rather small and limited caricature of what faith, religion, and belief offer to the realm of human knowledge, experience, and ultimately meaningful, significant existence.
11 Comments
Teresa B.
10/4/2014 12:41:57 pm

I am a very uninvolved person. Sometimes the worlds politics scare me. I find that there are so many different opinions in this world that there is no right or wrong way to believe in something. Personally I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. There are people in this world that are just not genetically designed to believe in the same things as me and there is no way of changing their thought process. When someone is going thru a difficult time, I have Faith for them. I believe there is always a way for things to get better.
I do believe that God is our Creator in my Heart. But at the same time the science of it makes sense too. But that doesn't change my belief.

Reply
Jay
10/17/2014 01:11:49 am

I'm not quire sure what you mean by "genetically" designed to believe...though Catholics do believe that faith is a gift given to us by our Creator--it's built into our being.
In any case, the relationship between Religion/Science or Faith/Reason might also be illustrated this way: A young girl at a family gathering asks her Uncle, "Where did I come from?" The Uncle replies, "From your daddy and mommy." The girl goes into another room and asks the family priest the same question. He replies, "From God." Both are correct.

Reply
Karen M.
10/9/2014 09:38:09 am

In the article “God, Darwin, and My College Biology Class”, David Barash claims that he wishes to put students at ease, however, he seems to descend into attacking faith and those with faith in God, something that has become increasingly common and acceptable in recent years. After all, the most prominent of politicians can criticize us for clinging to religion as if that is a bad thing.

The arguments of Barash also reflect that in our increasingly “politically correct” society, it seems that Christianity and Christians are the only things it is okay to mock, ridicule, or blatantly disrespect. Barash’s arguments do not show the respect he claims to have for his students’ beliefs.

The omniscience of God has not been disproven, in my opinion, by Darwin. Neither has “design” or “first cause”.

I do not buy his argument that the “illusion of centrality” has been defeated. We are created in the image and likeness of God, but we are not divine. Only God is divine. God has divine will and divine intellect, and we humans have human will and human intellect. Being made in the image and likeness of God refers to our immortal souls, not to our human bodies, so we know humans have no physical supernatural trait which could be found by Darwin or any other scientist studying human genetics or anatomy. Our supernatural faith is just that, faith.

We live in a world where disorder began with original sin. God created good and gave us free will. Creatures freely chose to do and become evil. In his article, Barash mentions “ethical horrors” that are just part of the world. However, many horrors in the world (i.e. murder, abuse, pain, suffering , and exploitation, etc.) are caused by the choices people make (free will).

I grew up in the “Bible Belt” and almost everyone I knew was Christian. In my public school we still had prayer in the classroom, grace before lunch, and a local church provided a weekly Bible story assembly. At the same time, our curriculum did not eliminate science. I never experienced a dilemma of reconciling faith and science. Maybe the answer is not to keep presenting the two as impossible to exist together, in harmony.

God is the Creator of our universe. According to the “modified theory of evolution” (see, The Catholicism Answer Book), there is a need of a divine creator (God), and God could use evolutionary processes to change aspects of His creation. This means God created the evolution just as He created the laws of physics, mathematics, chemistry, etc. The conclusion “if evolution does exist and operate, it must be part of divine will since nothing can or does exist or happen outside the will of God” summarizes how I never felt conflicted about faith or religion, and science.

Barash concludes “would that it were so simple”. My answer is that it is that simple; it is called faith. And if you insist on logic, there is a logical explanation of the universe. God is the explanation, but some people just don’t like that answer.

Reply
Jay
10/17/2014 01:14:23 am

You are right to distinguish between primary causality and secondary causality. In my comment to Teresa above, God is the primary cause for our existence. Our parents are the secondary cause.
While it is true Catholicism/Christianity is increasingly under attack by atheism and secularism, that isn't always the case everywhere. Within our own religious history too there are times that our own Christian beliefs (incorrectly held) led us to make triumphalistic statements and beliefs (our belief about slavery, or our belief of aligning western civilization above other cultures, for example).

Reply
EM
10/16/2014 09:56:29 am

Recently graduating from college, this article brings back a strong memory of my BIO 115 class where the professors first lecture was on the topic of GOD & Darwin. The feedback from the students became quickly heated and opinions shouted across the room. Honestly this is what I believe the teacher wanted, a heated debate. Much like in my faith in GOD; many Biology theories requires faith regarding new studies of science and of the universe.

Graduating in with an engineering degree, I have been trained to think of things in a scientific manor. However, this has not and would not change my faith in GOD. There have been several moments in my life that I can look back on and say, "there is no way that was science related", and that GOD was watching over me and protecting me.

This Universe will continue to evolve and scientists will continue to learn more about the place we are living. I do not think that these theories are or should be scary for anyone, we are simply learning more about ourselves, our society, and our planet.

Furthermore, religion has been and always will be a heated discussion whether in college classrooms or wars between countries. These discussions should not make you lose your faith in GOD and in Jesus Christ. Opinions will always be heard, but it is what is in your heart and mind that matter.

Reply
Jay
10/17/2014 01:18:33 am

I am glad that you point out that heated discussions do not necessarily imply a loss of belief. It is natural for human beings to seek more knowledge and as we do so, we have to constantly refine assumptions and previous patterns as we take in more information.
It is worth pointing out that both humanity and the Church moved from a view of the earth as the center of the universe to the earth traveling around the sun in a much more complex universe. This has not invalidated Science nor ended Catholic belief. It is unfortunate though, that many pretend as if today one must choose one side or the other when in fact the harder part is to constantly refine knowledge in light of experience.

Reply
J
10/16/2014 11:02:39 am

Growing up interested in technology and graduating with an engineering degree, I always kept my belief in God and religion. I believe that God is the creator of the universe and the laws of physics. Having this belief has always grounded my studies and allowed me to understand why things exist and how they exist.

Reply
Jay
10/17/2014 01:21:13 am

You are right to describe your governing assumption as a belief. And I am sure that you realize in any human endeavor at some level it is posited on a governing assumption (i.e. a belief or trust in something). While many will not raise that to the level of a full blown belief in God, it nevertheless is at least an indication that the world known simply by "facts" is much smaller, less held together, less interesting or meaningful, than the world that most of us really live in beyond "just the facts."

Reply
Minh
10/18/2014 04:40:57 am

I agree with EM. There will always be a heated debate between the science and religion aspect. However, understanding both perspectives will help us further both our knowledge and faith. I believe they are closely interwoven, but have not been able to clearly elucidate the relationship. I hope our discussion can better my understanding.

Reply
Jay
10/18/2014 11:24:05 am

I can provide a brief outline, but you might want to check out some work by John F. Haight: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Haught

Reply
Jay
10/18/2014 11:25:53 am

Another person worth following is Ilia Delio, who was on the faculty of my graduate school: http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/evolution-ilia-delio

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    A place for observations, mostly about the intersection of Religion & Everyday Life

    Archives

    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    America
    Dan Horan
    Faith & Reason
    New York Times
    OFM
    Religion & Science
    Scripture Readings

    RSS Feed


    RCIA Files

    bible_exercise.pdf
    File Size: 1781 kb
    File Type: pdf
    Download File

    Parts of the Mass
    File Size: 28 kb
    File Type: pdf
    Download File

    First Rite(s)
    File Size: 591 kb
    File Type: pdf
    Download File

Evolution may favor diversity, but the tail does not wag the fish
© 2012 Jay Cuasay. All Rights Reserved. Tribe Platypus, USA.