Tim Abbott

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."

Dawkins - The need to believe?

An interesting review today here in the Sunday Times as Rod Liddle considers Richard Dawkins new book, "The God Delusion". Liddle has little time for Christianity, but here he reveals that he also has little time for 'evangelistic atheism' and deconstructs Dawkins argument, revealing the faith inherent in Dawkins leap from scientism to atheism.
Liddle concludes:

It is evident in the fury and passion with which Dawkins et al advance their cause: they proselytise, they evangelise, they demand our repentance and our acceptance of their own creed. I’d rather treat science as a wonderful human creation for describing the world around us — often in metaphors that have an agreeably biblical ring to them. And, at the same time, I suspect — Betjeman called it, in a lovely oxymoron, a “faint conviction” — that we do not know everything, nor ever shall, and that there is a ghost somewhere in the machine.

Evolved to believe?

This week it's the British Association for the Advancement of Science "Festival of Science" at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. It may be an interesting commentary on our times that the biggest media interest seems to be centred around speakers dealing with what some might see as very unscientific behaviour in the forms of superstition, telepathy, the afterlife and the paranormal.

Of particular interest is the work of Professor Bruce Hood (reported here in The Times and here in The Guardian) who proposes that belief systems and superstition are a positive outcome of evolution in that they equip us to reason intuitively and to generate theories about the way things are, even when they cannot easily be seen or obviously deduced. This contrasts sharply with the view of Richard Dawkins who views religion and superstition as evil 'memes', ideas that have been passed down through generations but which ultimately (he hopes) have the potential to be expunged from human history. Dawkins increasingly vehement denouncement of religion and god reach a new landmark later this month with the publication of 'The God Delusion'.

Much as I am warm towards Dawkins' science, I am left cold by the leap of faith he makes, and seems to require everyone to make, towards atheism. Alister McGrath's book, 'Dawkins' God' deals with this wisely and respectfully. From a purely evolutionary scientific perspective, Bruce Hood's theory seems to make more sense, to 'fit' better.

So where does that leave us theologically?
For me, there are two vitally important issues.

Firstly, if there is a God (and I believe there is!) then by very definition, as well as by essence and being, he is far above all that we investigate or even imagine. I believe God has given us wisdom and reason which outworks into the scientific method so that we can both enjoy more fully all he has made and also better steward the resources he's given us. But the scientific method falls within all that he has created - therefore all we know is not all there is to know. Further, our understanding will forever be limited by the fact that in our world we are both the subject and the object of observation - we can't get out of the system God has set us in to take bigger look. We can't get up into the control room of the Truman Show and look down upon the Truman world.

Therefore, even if Bruce Hood is right, and we are made to reason intuitively and to imagine beyond the immediately verifiable, is this not a quality that God has uniquely breathed into us as humans? This gives us not only the capacity to think, reflect and create, but also to seek him, the one for whom and through whom all things were made. It is a scary possibility that God could just as easily have made a universe and placed humans on the earth and left the phone line disconnected - leaving us to experience a God-less life whilst God looked on, uninvolved. No. He made us to seek and to find.

The other vital issue is Jesus! Much of the current discussion centres on the phenomenon of religious faith in general and its usefulness (Hood) or otherwise (Dawkins). Since God has 'set eternity in people's hearts' it's not surprising that the tendency to seek God, or at least to be superstitious, is a nearly universal experience. But God did the most amazing thing when he sent Jesus to walk among us and the evidence stands out in history.

Perhaps the scientists should shift their gaze towards a thorough investigation into the evidence for the one who was God, who moved into our neighbourhood and who clearly overcame the ultimate fate of us all.