Topics Defying Rational Conversation in Modern Society
Have you ever been in a room of seemingly intelligent individuals who are able to discuss rationally any host of topics, only to have one individual throw out a particular view and suddenly be ostracized from future rational discourse (mind you, such banishment comes uniformly from individuals who on any other subject would rarely ever agree)?In Christian circles, the latter observation of "rarely ever agreeing" may not come into play, but the thought that "in no other setting would this issue even be up for dialogue" because it's of such peripheral significance or contention. The legitimacy of using contraceptives (even something as "innocuous" as a condom) or whether Harry Potter or the Da Vinci Code are acceptable reading are examples within this group. Mention any one of these topics and the Christians in the room each seek to control the conversation. In any more diverse setting, the concept of such issues even being issues is roundly dismissed.
In those more "diverse" settings, however, some topics are still off limits. The merits of Creationism or Intelligent Design, for example. The former is scoffed at as the final vestige of religion's hold over legitimate science - anyone who could possibly believe in Creation obviously cannot believe in basic scientific facts. They probably don't even believe that the Earth is flat and that gravity isn't really true either. And as for the latter, well, that's just Creation couched in pseudo-science as well. The Washington Post ran an article some weeks back about a doctoral student with multiple other degrees, valid scientific credentials, etc. who had his grant-funded research position revoked after the directors of the program discovered that the student did not blindly accept the precepts of macro-evolution. Mind you, the student was willing to put caveats on any evolution-based arguments such that "Some believe" and "Some evidence suggests," he simply wasn't willing to write such arguments from a "no controversy or skepticism permitted" perspective. And he was revoked.
Such litmus tests are routinely fround upon in all other fields, but for some reason to question evolution is beyond the pale. Why is this?
I am not a scientist or philosopher. Let me posit one initial thought, and open the floor for a rational discussion of the issue (and it is an issue). Evolution is based on a philosophy of materialism; nothing exists beyond the material, physical world. Its necessary predicate is that everything must be explained by what is seen. To permit any notion of an unseen Higher Authority is to cast doubt not only on evolution but on this philosophical predecessor. And evolutionists (in large part) are unwilling to accept that possibility. Their precommitment to the denial of God's existence forces them to engage in the very conceit they accuse their Creationist counterparts of engaging in - a philosophical precommitment (the existence or non-existence of God) that clouds their interpretation of that "raw physical data" that is supposed to have all the answers.
posted by shadowlands7 @ 9:17:00 PM
2 Comments:
If I may let my Keikergaardian roots show.
I was purposefully obtuse regarding my thoughts on quite a few theological and assorted tantent issues while at Regent because they frankly aren’t central to the core of Christianity. The Origins debate is one I avoided like the plague.
The problem is that neither evolution nor /creationism/intelligent design/whatever its being called now is not observable science in the broadest sense. They are all theory on pretty much equal footing. Said realization makes both Christian and skeptic eyes bleed, but them’s da breaks. It becomes a matter of looking at which one of them is most logical.
Evolution is, in a sense, saying that a tornado could blow through a junkyard and create a car from the parts lying around. It’s virtually impossible to think that could happen, but the probability can be calculated mathematically. If it can be calculated, no matter how improbable, it exists within the realm of possibility. The universe is a big place full of all sorts of improbable things. Faith leaves the theory once we go beyond the origin and view microevolution, which even the most fundamentalist of Christian have been dragged kicking and screaming into admitting exists. Therefore, in the broadest sense, evolution is possible, and at least partially observable.
Creationism, on the other hand, is neither. In fact, it is illogical. How did God separate the light and the dark on one day and create the moon and sun on another? How did plants survive without bees 9created on another day) to pollinate them? It doesn’t really matter, as the accounts in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 contradict each other on the order of things created anyway. There are no explanations outside of faith to correct these problems, and intellectuals are loathe to admit faith when logical answers, such as evolution exist.
Evolution, like all science is based on the observable, measurable, and refutable. It is not that science claims that nothing exists beyond the material, physical world, as much as science claims unless a theory (using the term here to mean "explanation" and not something less than fact) explains observed and measured behavior AND can be refuted or disproved with contradictory, observed and measured behavior, the anyone's and everyone's theory is as good as any other. This is where creationism and, its twin twice removed, intelligent design, fall apart. How can we measure either and, for sure, how can we refute either?
We no longer believe that angels push the sun, planets, and stars around the earth. Most people on earth today believe in gravity and the accepted construct of the solar system and galaxies and the universe.
Although I consider myself an atheist these days, it is not because of science that I have no faith in a god. When I was a believer and a good Christian, science in no way weakened my faith. If anything, I concur with Einstein who marveled at the incredibly structure, simple interactions of forces and mass, that explained the entire universe.
Can you not see the beauty in the delicate simplicity without having to explain it away to god? Let science explain how things work and let religion, god, spirituality, faith explain why we are here to see this beauty.
Post a Comment
<< Home