Tim Abbott

Links for today

Some links that inspired me today:

This from Matt Stone, whose perception and perspective I often appreciate

St. Francis of Assisi once said,
“Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary, use words"

I thought, why stop there?
“Worship always, and when necessary, use music”
“Disciple always, and when necessary, do it sitting down”
“Serve always, and when necessary, do it in services”

And this helpful response from Thinking Christian to Richard Dawkin's assertion that religion leads logically to violence, whereas atheism doesn't.

Nebo-Sarsekim's receipt

Rare evidence in a nonbiblical source of a real person, other than kings, featured in the Bible has been discovered in a tiny clay tablet at the British Museum. There are articles about it, with pictures of the tiny tablet, in The Times and The Telegraph.

According to our spirituality survey last autumn, by the age of 14 only about 21% of young people agree that Christianity is based on events that actually happened - 52% are unsure and 27% reject the idea. There seems to be little awareness of the historical basis for a good proportion of what is in the bible. Perhaps the media fixation with evolution and certain interpretations of Genesis creates the impression the whole thing is utterly debateable and founded on nothing but uncertainty.

In trying to break this logjam in understanding we explain how historical, and in particular achaeological, findings from non-biblical sources back up much of what we read in the bible. So today's finding is a useful example of the way such seemingly insignificant details can provide significant weight to our understanding of the historical accuracy of these parts of the Bible.

"This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find," said Dr Finkel from the British Museum. "If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power."

Little did Nebo-Sarsekim, a chief officer of King Nebuchadnezzar, realise that his clay tablet receipt for 0.75kg of gold for a temple in Babylon would survive nearly 2600 years and in so doing help to confirm the existence and events of the very people he marched to Jerusalem to enslave.

Swarm theory

I'm currently writing an assignment about hierarchical and flat leadership structures in Christian organisations. So I was fascinated to find this article about swarm theory, looking at the way ants and bees achieve swarm intelligence in the absence of any hierarchical leadership system. In essence, every ant or every bee acts as a researcher contributing to a collective understanding of what's the right thing to do.

Such collective intelligence is observable in a way in human society, particularly on the internet in the way that Google ranks pages, or ebay sellers build trust through feedback or Wikipedia articles are refined and improved.
And there are examples of the ways good organisations can harness the collective intelligence of everyone involved.

[via: Alan Hirsch]

Dawkins deconstructed

Richard Dawkins' much reviewed (and found wanting) book 'The God Delusion' gets another review in The New York review of Books, this time by H. Allen Orr, Professor of Biology at the University of Rochester (USA) and titled, A mission to convert [ht: Fernando Gros]
The review deals with some of the specifics of Dawkins' argument but lays most of its criticism at the very selective use of reason, philosophy and evidence to support an a priori conclusion. Such an eminenet scientist should know better how to apply a scientific method to both sides of the argument.
But, as Orr writes...

One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn't seem very good at it. Indeed he suffers from several problems when attempting to reason philosophically. The most obvious is that he has a preordained set of conclusions at which he's determined to arrive. Consequently, Dawkins uses any argument, however feeble, that seems to get him there and the merit of various arguments appears judged largely by where they lead.

The most important example involves Dawkins's discussion of philosophical arguments for the existence of God as opposed to his own argument against God, which he presents as the intellectual heart of his book. Considering arguments for God, Dawkins is careful to recite the many standard objections to them and writes that the traditional proofs are "vacuous," "dubious," "infantile," and "perniciously misleading." But turning to his own Ultimate Boeing 747 argument against God, Dawkins is suddenly uninterested in criticism and writes that his argument is "unanswerable." So why, you might wonder, is a clever philosophical argument for God subject to withering criticism while one against God gets a free pass and is deemed devastating?

Dawkins seems unaware that his dogmatism does not dress up well in the tattered clothes of pseudo reason that he brings to his argument. The most devastating argument looks stupid when presented in a ranting and fundamentalist way. As contemporary Christians we are only too painfully aware of the damage that can be done to people's understanding of the gospel when zealots rail against unbelievers or act like obsessed pressure groups.

This review is well worth reading and a good overview of the severe weaknesses of Richard Dawkins' case. The tragedy is that if he carries on like this he will be rememberd as the once brilliant scientist who lost it and became a religious nutcase, albeit an atheistic one.

UPDATE - 18 Jan 2007: Here's another review worth reading, this time from Terry Eagleton, John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at Manchester University. [ht Bishop Mike]

The Atheist Delusion

Here's an amusing take on the beliefs of creationists, inspired by Dawkins and Harris. God is real. And he's unbelievable stands as a useful mirror revealing the way we (Christians) are often seen by secular evolutionists. It fairly accurately reflects the actual views of some Christians, thought not, of course, the views of all Christians. For secular evolutionists the world view presented here, when typically implied to be universally believed, is a useful 'straw man' argument that can be simply demolished. It would be a shame to give in to such easy reductionism from either extreme of the creation/evolution, natural/supernatural, theist/atheist argument. There is still mystery and much that is concealed in both God and science.

The Coke effect

Coca Cola. Youth groups run on the stuff (well, ours do anyway). And I've found that it works as a cure for a dehydration headache. But what really goes on once you down a bottle of coke?
Healthbolt has the answer in an article titled, What Happens To Your Body If You Drink A Coke Right Now?

In place of God...?

"In place of God" is the lead article in the current (18 Nov 06) edition of New Scientist reporting on "Beyond belief: Science, religion, reason and survival", a symposium held 5-7 Nov in La Jolla, California. The aim was to address three questions:
Should science do away with religion?
What would science put in religion's place?
Can we be good without God?

The basic conclusion could be said to be summed up by Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas who said, "Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilisation." His subsequent admission that, like the loss of a crazy old aunt, we might miss religion, was not enough for Richard Dawkins who countered, "I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion."
In place of religion speakers offered the grandeur of the immensity and eternity apparent in the universe. Carolyn Porco of the Space Science Institute stated, "The answers to why we are here, if they exist at all, will be found in astronomy and evolution." The fact that our atoms come from stardust and eventually return to the cosmos provides a substitute for the religious concept of immortality.
When it comes to values and morality in a world free of religion, there would be no need for a scriptural mandate since every human social value and moral can be traced back to group dynamics and biochemistry.

One significant conclusion was that scientists should "come out" and declare their rejection of religion boldly, much as gay men started to do in the late 60's. But as well as this personal declaration, Harry Kroto of Florida State University felt that scientists should launch a coordinated global effort at education, media outreach and campaigning on behalf of science. Such an effort worked against apartheid and the internet now provided a platform that could take science education programmes into every home without being subject to the ideological and commercial whims of network broadcasters. They should also work against schools run by faith groups.

Not all contributors were as convinced of the absolute primacy of science as a substitute for religion. One speaker felt that, "...scientists are portraying themselves as the enlightened white knights while people of faith are portrayed as idiots" and acknowledged that science can have it's own dogma and prophets. That science's ethics can be manipulated by, for example, biotech companies, also led to doubts that the scientific community could produce a workable morality.

New Scientist has a podcast on the science vs religion debate, as well as several others.

My take on it all

"Religion is leading us to the edge of something terrible," writes Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith. "Half of the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. This kind of thinking provides people with no basis to make the hard decisions we have to make."
I agree, up to a point. Poor theology deserves to be challenged and I see no scriptural mandate for absenting ourselves from the needs and challenges of the world around us until Jesus himself appears in the heavens. But scientists also needs to look at the positive contribution that Christians are making to the lives of millions of people across the nations. As Michael Shermer, editor in chief at Skeptic magazine, pointed out, "What about the hundreds of millions of dollars raised just for Katrina by religions? Religions did way more than the government did, and there were no scientific groups rushing to help the victims of Katrina - that's not what science does."

Evangelical atheists like Dawkins seem to confuse religion with theology because, considering the whole field of religious enquiry to be totally devoid of value, they are not prepared to explore the difference.
Religion seems to be an intrinsic part of what it is to be human, whether expressed through a recognised world faith, vague attraction to superstitious practices or a devout belief in a world view (any world view). The question, "What would science put in religion's place" might as well ask how we could replace love or creativity. As a scientific (rather than religious) observation, it seems you can't escape religion. People will find something to put their faith in - whether that's Christ, mother earth, superstition or science.
Theology, however, has the capacity to be good or bad, open or closed, beneficial or destructive. As Christians we can only speak for our own theology, but it is still helpful to listen to our critics. Some people still have wacky beliefs that do not easily bear the examination of either scripture or reason.
Ultimately, evangelical secularists reject religion, but talk and act in a way that can only be described as religious. They refuse to accept the judgement that their arguments have moved into the field of religious enquiry like a man thrashing about in a swimming pool who refuses to accept the existence of water or the need to learn how to swim.
As Scott Atran, research director in anthropology at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, said of the "Beyond belief" symposium, "This is just a neo-Christian cult. The arguments being put forward here are extraordinarily blind and simplistic. The Soviets taught kids in school about science - religiously - and it didn't work out too well. I just don't think scientists, when they step out of science, have any better insight than the ordinary schmuck on the street. It makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

I think we could be in for a long haul on this one, but let me end with some predictions.
Expect some atheist scientists to "come out" as a way of encouraging people to see atheism as normal - but also look out for a response from theists and agnostics from within the scientific community angry at Dawkins assertion that all real scientists are atheists.
Campaigning atheists will increasingly be perceived by the general public to be little different to religious evangelists which will help the image of neither science or religion.
Human beings, made in the image of a relational God will continue to seek and find meaning through faith in Christ, even in secular states that suppress religion through ideology or violence.

Here are some useful links in the ongoing debate.

Theos is a new public theology think tank. It aims to provide alternative perspectives to the orthodoxies of secular culture and impact public opinion about the role of faith and belief in society.

Edge is an organisation that seeks to highlight the work and expository writing of scientists, thinkers and other intellectuals. It has a clearly secular agenda which makes it an excellent place to find out what contemporary secular thinkers are actually saying.

UPDATES

An excellent podcast from City Church, San Fransisco of Alister McGrath responding to "The God Delusion".

An article in Beliefnet in which Richard Dawkins sets his reasons for his hostility to religion.

Big Questions

The current edition of New Scientist magazine is running a series of articles under the heading "The Big Questions."

Leading scientists provide their own perspective on questions like...
What is reality?
What is life?
Do we have free will?
Is the universe deterministic?
What is consciousness?
... plus a few others.

I hope to post a few thoughts.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

With the current debate / argument / fight about God, science and evolution it's good to know that some atheists also have a sense of humour.
The rise of the Church of the Spaghetti Monster suggests there's still some fun to be had in the midst of all the debate. It started last year with a humourous letter on a serious subject to the Kansa School Board about the teaching of Intelligent Design...

Science goes pomo

I suppose it was bound to happen eventually. A new science curriculum "Scientific literacy for the 21st Century" has gone a bit postmodern by aiming to teach "the nature of science and how it works", and getting students to debate topical issues in class. There are articles about it in The Times and at the BBC. Perhaps a bit like the science equivalent of media studies. Top science bods have labelled it as "more suited to the pub than the classroom", though in my experience discussing topical science issues down the pub tends to happen quite a lot anyway, if not in any depth.
In fairness, it seems this will be one of two science subjects that students will study, the other being more 'pure' or 'applied'. There is also a clear benefit in young people having a better grasp of the issues and thinking behind the pseudo-science headline grabbing of the media, if that's what this course will achieve.
But it interesting how even science education is beginning to respond to the new standards of personal relativism.
Into this new mix of deconstructed science there is also the new(ish) Christian organisation Truth in Science which has the lofty aim of being impartial in the whole evolution/creation debate and seeking to be true both to the science behind our origins as well as the limitations of our knowledge. I wish them well.
Personally, I'm with the approach that sees science principally as revelation. As Einstein apparently said, "I want to know God's thoughts - the rest are details."