The Changelog

I read 7 Ways Religion is Detrimental to Science, and thought it would be an interesting read. It was, but I don't think it really made sense. Let's look at the 7 ways they highlighted:

1. Faith and the Scientific Method are Opposites

The article states:

Faith is a belief in an idea regardless of the evidence for or against it.

Actually, that's not true at all, at least for traditional Christianity. (Note that traditional Christianity is not the same as fundamentalism). Marcus J. Borg describes faith in four ways:

Fiducia -- trusting in God. Borg says, "Faith . . . [means] we trust in God as the one upon whom we rely, as our support and foundation and ground, as our safe place."

Fidelitas -- loyalty, or "the comment of the self at its deepest level, the commitment of the 'heart'. Faith as fidelitas does not mean faithfulness to statements about God. . . Fidelitas refers to a radical centering in God."

Visio -- a way of seeing -- "a way of seeing the whole, a way of seeing 'what is'. . . the ability to love and to be present to the moment. It generates a 'willingness to spend and be spent' for the sake of a vision that goes beyond ourselves."

Assensus -- perhaps the closest to what the author meant, is "faith as belief." Borg goes on to add:

The notion that Christian faith is primarily . . . about belief, about a "head" matter, is recent. . . For many, Christian faith began to mean believing questionable things to be true. . . this is the most widespread contemporary understanding of "belief".

This is very different from what faith as assensus meant. . . A deep but humble (and therefore imprecise) understanding of Christian faith as assensus, as involving affirmation of the centrality of God as known in the Bible and Jesus, is very close to faith as vision. It is a way of seeing reality.

As a Christian, I do not find the scientific method to be a problem. I find it to be enlightening in all sorts of matters, including even the history of religion in some instances. Christian faith is not about believing in certain ideas (such as the world being created in 6 literal 24-hour days), though there are those that distort it to be so. Rather, Christian faith is about living your life a certain way, about the meaning of life, about our duties to make the world a better place.

2. People Vote Base on Religious Ideas

The author says that "Stem Cells weren’t the first time a body of research didn’t get proper funding because some religious wack-jobs." Well, I agree that that was a problem. Non-religious people can vote in odd ways too. I argue that the rejection of stem-cell research goes against Christian teaching; after all, we are to help the least among us, and do not people with Alzheimer's qualify?

I think the author's point should have been "exremists have odd views." Extremists can be atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or other religions. Religion does not have a monopoly on them.

3. Religion Removes the Need For Science

The author says:

When people are content to believe in something that explains why they are here, even if it is wrong, they become less interested in other ideas. Religion often leads people to believe that they have all the answers. Science is self-correcting in that nobody assumes they are absolutely correct.

That is incorrect on several levels. First, science cannot explain why we are here. It can explain some of the mechanics. As an example, let us take for granted that modern scientific thought on the origin of humanity is correct: that there was a Big Bang, that single-celled creatures evolved on earth, and that human life eventually evolved through a complex process of evolution and natural selection. Fine; this does not contradict religion in any way. Science and religion answer different questions. Science answers "how". Religion answers "why". Science cannot answer the question "Why was there a big bang?" or "Did the evolution of humanity serve a larger purpose?"

Moreover, religion should not assume that they have all the answers, either. The canonical Christian Bible was mostly fixed within a few centuries AD. Life in 200AD was a lot different from life today. Part of the reason there are many different groups of Christians is the complexity of applying the stories in the Bible to modern life. The ideas in any given denomination evolve over time, too. I think it would be the height of hubris for anyone, religious or not, to claim that he or she had all the answers. Again, I know that some religious people act that way, but then so do some atheists or agnostics.

4. People Lean on Religion, When They Could Benefit From Science

The author of "7 Ways" cites the quite rare case where a child dies of a curable disease while his/her parents pray, refusing medical care. This is an extreme position that is not shared by the vast majority of religious people. Most religious people are perfectly content to use the latest medical care.

Meditation or prayer does not replace medical care; it supplements it. Scientific studies have even demonstrated its effectiveness.

5. The Church Takes Up Natural Resources

The original author states that "The land that churches take up around the world could be used to build schools, homes, recreational buildings and commercial operations." This is perhaps the most frivolous of arguments. Putting aside the fact that many churches operate schools, churches are often one of the few ways that modern city dwellers have to form a sense of community. They are not just places to engage in religion. They are places to meditate, to get away from it all, to meet your neighbors, to vote.

6. The Church Takes Up Monetary Resources

The original author says "if people donated to scientific advancement like they did to the church, imagine where we would be today." It's not a pleasant picture. Religion, and institutions supported primarily because of the teaching of religion, are the people that feed the hungry after natural disasters, that operate food pantries (our church operates the only one in our community, and it's open to anyone without any questions or talk about religion), that operate schools in disadvantaged areas, that have spread the whole idea of fair trade for third-world artisans, etc.

It is true that acts of evil have been committed in the name of the church, too. It is also unquestionably true that some church groups spend money more carefully than others. As with any donation, people should be careful where they give. Government-operated research studies are not necessarily a good use of money, either.

7. Religion is A Strong Meme

The author of the original story seems to be responding to a particular brand of Christianity: what Borg calls "literal-factual" religion. There are quite a few people that take that stand. They are sometimes inaccurately referred to as "evangelicals" or the "religious right"; while there is some overlap between the groups, they are not one and the same. The people with the literal-factual view are not representative of the whole.

More interestingly, Borg points out that the literal-factual view was actually a response to the development of the scientific method during the Enlightenment. As the modern idea of truth moved to literal, factual, provable truth, some Christians grew defensive about their faith, and started to look for "scientific" ways to prove that the world was created in 6 days, etc. in an attempt to show the world that Christianity fit their new notion of truth.

That makes a compelling argument that the scientific method is the stronger meme in today's Western world -- so strong that the author of the rant against religion has apparently forgotten the more prevalant -- both throughout history and today -- view of Christianity that is "more than" Science, not at odds with science.

Back in 1997, long before the days of Youtube, there was a film short called Troops. Troops is about 10 minutes long, and an absolutely hilarious piece of work. It's done in the style of Cops, but set on Tatooine in the Star Wars universe. Many people today credit it with kickstarting the fan film genre and inspiring what has evolved into stars of Youtube.

I remember giving a talk at the Air Capitol Linux Users Group (Wichita, KS). I brought with me my laptop, and had downloaded Troops onto it. I played it for the group. This was at a time when being able to play video on a laptop was something new and interesting, and under Linux no less, even more so. Also, at a time when video of this size may have taken a day to download. Everyone there loved it. I think I used xanim to play it (remember that?)

Anyhow, you can still download that same original file from theforce.net. Or, for the less patient, just watch it here:

Today we assigned an IP address to a gas tank.

Yay.

I think that for the first time, when I go to vote this November, I will probably not have to hold my nose as I make a selection for president. I don't agree with Obama on everything, of course, but the core of what he stands for -- that it is time to enter a post-racial, post-partisan time -- and that putting the interests of the people before those of the corporation -- is a powerful message.

And I'm not the only one that thinks so. One interesting read is Why This 55-Year-Old White Lifelong Republican Wants Obama To Win by Frank Schaeffer. He's a pro-life, pro-military Republican that actually campaigned for McCain in 2000, and this year he's supporting Obama. He pointed out another key point: Obama does not play on our fears.

Then there's A Transformational Moment by Jim Wallis, who grew up in a time when white people that supported civil rights were literally putting their lives on the line. He ends with:

This morning I heard several interviews on NPR with black Americans about their response to Obama's nomination. One older woman said, "A black man running for president, did you hear what just I said? A black man running for president of the United States ...." She just kept repeating the words, and succinctly captured my own personal feelings.

Yes, it is truly historic, and the U.K. newspaper headlines captured that sentiment as did papers around the world. Nothing could change the image of America around the world more than this. But it is more than historic; it is very personal for many of my generation. A new generation just sees this as natural -- he's an inspirational leader who happens to be black, which matters little to them. But for my generation -- I'm dating myself now -- this is a transformational moment, one we didn't think would come in our lifetimes. Race was the issue that changed us, shaped us, determined our path, and even defined the meaning of our faith. Now a black man is running for president of the United States. Amazing grace.

Tom Hayden reflects on the similarities between Obama and RFK, another interesting read. He concludes with:

Those who denounce Obama -- and the possibilities of all electoral politics- - should ponder the effectiveness of sitting judgmentally on the sidelines while an Unexpected Future arrives through the sheer will of a new generation. They should consider whether politics and history can be reduced to a fixed determinism that is endlessly repeated, as if there are no surprises. We can have our differences with Obama's specific policies, as I certainly do, but those should be measured against the prospect that a movement might transform him even as his very rise continues to transform the rest of us.

And now for something less inspiring. If you go look over at the latest blog entry at hillaryclinton.com and read the comments, these readers frankly sound more than a little loony. There are rampant accusations that Obama "stole the election" with the help of the DNC. That makes no sense to me; he followed the rules, and the DNC gave Clinton more delegates than she should have had with the rules as they were at the start of the game (which she supported then). The Obama campaign even rejected a plan that was less favorable to Clinton at the DNC rules committee meeting on Saturday. They also go on and on about how Obama has had so many scandals (though the Clinton real estate scandals really are far more serious than a former pastor). It all looks so very petty, and I wonder why Clinton has whipped up her supporters to such a fervent extent. Perhaps it was an accident, but you'd think things like this are rarely an accident with her.

Terah, Jacob, and I went camping last weekend. Terah had asked me what I wanted for Father's Day. I thought for just a second, and said "camping!" She looked like she regretted asking. But it has been a year since our last camping trip, so off we went.

We went to Marion County Park and Lake, a nice park built by FDR's CCC program in the 1930s. It is on the National Register of Historic Places thanks to all the stone buildings, bridges, etc. that were built back then and still survive.

The reason we like it is because one side of the lake has the park office, rentable meeting houses, RV hookups, a swimming area, and really all the things you expect at a park like this (albeit on a small scale). The other side of the lake has gravel roads and fire rings. No power, no running water, but the occasional stone outhouse every half mile or so. Which means that the RV owners are not going to want to spend the night on that side of the lake. So, unlike far too many parks, it is possible to pitch a tent a good distance from the RVs. It's so annoying to go to camping and find it to be noisier than home because of all the TVs and generators running.

Jacob wasn't so sure about the first evening, but he was having a blast all day Saturday. His favorite thing was the campfire. He called it "fie" (rhymes with "buy"). He watched me gathering up brush and preparing the fire, carefully placing the small sticks first, then the big ones. So he picked up a small stick, and carefully laid it inside the fire ring, too. Then he'd watch me light the fire, or blow on some embers, and he'd blow on it, too. Fffffffffffffff! As hard as he could. At one point, I was kneeling next to the fire ring, inspecting the kindling. Terah noticed Jacob kneeling next to the fire ring on the other side, with the exact same posture and expression as I had. It was a perfect Father's Day, I think.

Once the fire got going, he'd walk up towards it, say "HA!" (hot), and then run away. Educational, this camping business. He now knows what "hot" is all about.

Jacob also loved the lake. We would walk the few feet down to the beach, and he'd (holding on to one of us) walk just far enough into it to get his feet covered by the water, then pick up sand and throw it into the water to watch it splash. Or, he'd point at a boat ("bope") in the water ("wah") going past, all excited -- Bope! Bope!!! BOPE!!!

One of my favorite things while camping is sitting outside and watch the sun set. Terah and I did that while munching on banana boats we cooked in the fire (a banana and chocolate concoction that you sort of melt in tinfoil). Or we could sit in the shade on the ground and just relax and enjoy the scenery.

Terah didn't say that she enjoyed camping, but she did agree that there were good times and we could come back. Woohoo, I guess.

We're not really camping pros, and we learned a few things. One is that it would be nice to not have three meals in a day that require a fire. I'm fine with eating fruit, canned stuff, and other no-cooking-needed stuff when camping, but Terah likes more traditional food. And that's fine, and we had some great stuff to eat, but building fires is hard and hot work.

Over the first few days after we got home, Jacob came up to me and said, looking rather sad, "Fie? Fie?" I said, "Jacob, we don't have a fire here. There is no fire here." He would look so sad, and just repeat to himself for a few minutes, "No fie. No fie. No fie." So I asked him if I should build a little fire. "Yeah!" So I got a match and lit a candle. Oh, was that exciting, and almost as soon as it showed up, he tried to blow on it. By today he has learned how to blow out a candle.

A great Father's Day for sure, but we hadn't really tried to sow the seeds of a fascination with fire on the trip.