Higgs Boson?

An example of simulated data modelled for the CMS particle detector on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Here, following a collision of two protons, a is produced which decays into two jets of hadrons and two electrons. The lines represent the possible paths of particles produced by the proton-proton collision in the detector while the energy these particles deposit is shown in blue. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There was important science news this week. Two research groups announced they have found a particle which looks very much like the Higgs Boson Particle. You can read about it here and here.

I understand that this is an important discovery- a once in a lifetime event for physicists. But I'm no physicist, so I went looking for articles to help me understand what these physicists have found.

Here is a graphic to help explain things.

Here is the first part of a multi part video series to help.

Here is a Q and A with a physicist from Cambridge.

One of the most interesting things about science is that scientists can make predictions about what ought to be and then go looking for "it".  Forty eight years ago, Peter Higgs wrote a paper where he suggested that what come to be called the Higgs fields and the Higgs boson must exist. This week, two groups have most likely "found" what Higgs predicted. That we can understand the universe, to the point of looking at what is and predicting what then must be, is absolutely amazing.

If you are wondering, "so what?"  This video from Berkeley Lab provides some answers to that question and to the question what if this new particle upsets what we think we know?

If you are wondering whether this discovery end the science and religion debates, here is what Philip Clayton thinks.

And here  (from the Clayton article) is how Steven Colbert resolves the science and religion debate.

cross posted at Conversation in Faith.

Physics and Philosophy

When we enter into conversation about science and religion, it is important for us to be able to recognize when we move from discussion about the results of science to the philosophical/theological interpretation and reflection on the implication of those results. We all make that move, from results to implication and interpretation. In a sense, we can't help it. Part of being a thinking human is asking, "what does this mean?". Most of us would agree we need to make that move. But, sometimes it can be difficult to spot when we make the transition, it can take some practice. 

This week, NPR published this interesting blog post on physics and philosophy as well as this related post . If you follow the links within that blog post to the New York Times book review, the response to the review in The Atlantic, and the "apology" in Scientific American, you will find an interesting example of scientific and philosophical interpretation. Lawrence Krauss gives us an example of a scientist who believes that physics will explain all. He is quite dismissive of all theologians and most philosophers. That's fine, he certainly can have his opinion about theology and philosophy. What is fascinating is how, in The Atlantic interview and the Scientific American  essay, Krauss slides back and forth between science and philosophy while denying the validity and importance of philosophy ( unless the philosopher agrees with Krauss and then that sort of philosophy is fine.) 

I've given you quite a bit to read this week, so I'll limit my remarks and ask, what do you think about all this? 

Cross posted at Conversation in Faith.

Americans' Views on Evolution and Trust in Science

Have you seen this? (from Biologos) 

And then there is this from the American Sociological Association:

Study: Conservatives’ Trust in Science Has Fallen Dramatically Since Mid-1970s

Trust in Science Has Also Declined Among People Who Frequently Attend Church  

WASHINGTON, DC, March 29, 2012 — While trust in science remained stable among people who self-identified as moderates and liberals in the United States between 1974 and 2010, trust in science fell among self-identified conservatives by more than 25 percent during the same period, according to new research from Gordon Gauchat, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

“You can see this distrust in science among conservatives reflected in the current Republican primary campaign,” said Gauchat, whose study appears in the April issue of the American Sociological Review. “When people want to define themselves as conservatives relative to moderates and liberals, you often hear them raising questions about the validity of global warming and evolution and talking about how ‘intellectual elites’ and scientists don’t necessarily have the whole truth.”

Relying on data from the 1974-2010 waves of the nationally representative General Social Survey, the study found that people who self-identified as conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to self-identified moderates and liberals, and ended the period with the lowest.

In addition to examining how the relationship between political ideology and trust in science changed over almost 40 years, Gauchat also explored how other social and demographic characteristics—including frequency of church attendance—related to trust in science over that same period. Gauchat found that, while trust in science declined between 1974 and 2010 among those who frequently attended church, there was no statistically significant group-specific change in trust in science over that period among any of the other social or demographic factors he examined, including gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

“This study shows that the public trust in science has not declined since the mid-1970s except among self-identified conservatives and among those who frequently attend church,” Gauchat said. “It also provides evidence that, in the United States, there is a tension between religion and science in some contexts. This tension is evident in public controversies such as that over the teaching of evolution.”

As for why self-identified conservatives were much less likely to trust science in 2010 than they were in the mid-1970s, Gauchat offered several possibilities. One is the conservative movement itself.

“Over the last several decades, there’s been an effort among those who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it means to be a conservative,” Gauchat said. “For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities and what is perceived as the ‘liberal culture.’ So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes ‘us’ conservatives is that we don’t agree with ‘them.’”

Another possibility, according to Gauchat, is the changing role of science in the United States. “In the past, the scientific community was viewed as concerned primarily with macro structural matters such as winning the space race,” Gauchat said. “Today, conservatives perceive the scientific community as more focused on regulatory matters such as stopping industry from producing too much carbon dioxide. Conservatives often oppose government regulation, and they increasingly perceive science as on the side of regulation, especially as scientific evidence is used more frequently in the work of government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and in public debates over issues such as climate change.”

The study also found that the declining trust in science among conservatives was not attributable to changes among less educated conservatives, but rather to rising distrust among better educated conservatives. “It is a significant finding and the opposite of what many might expect,” Gauchat said.

As for the study’s implications, Gauchat said it raises important questions about the future role of science in public policy. “In a political climate in which all sides do not share a basic trust in science, scientific evidence no longer is viewed as a politically neutral factor in judging whether a public policy is good or bad,” said Gauchat, who is also concerned that the increasingly politicized view of science could turn people away from careers in the field. “I think this would be very detrimental to an advanced economy where you need people with science and engineering backgrounds.”

###

About the American Sociological Association and the American Sociological Review
The American Sociological Association (www.asanet.org), founded in 1905, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to serving sociologists in their work, advancing sociology as a science and profession, and promoting the contributions to and use of sociology by society. The American Sociological Review is the ASA’s flagship journal.

The research article described above is available by request for members of the media. For a copy of the full study, contact Daniel Fowler, ASA’s Media Relations and Public Affairs Officer, at (202) 527-7885 or pubinfo@asanet.org.

Comments? 

Miracles?

Let's talk about miracles. Can people in an age of science believe in miracles?  What are miracles?
I want to offer three ways people might think about miracles ( You are encouraged to expand this list in the 'comments').

1. Miracles don't really happen. This view would contend that events which appear to be unexplainable and thus are attributed to God are simply events which are currently unexplainable. As our knowledge increases, science will be able to explain the 'miracle'. This is a variation of the God of the Gaps argument.

2. Miracles are or will be explainable and consistent with what we know about how nature works. But God is present in a particular way( for example the timing of an event) which makes the event a miracle. God works within natural processes, in particular and unique ways.

3. God sometimes intervenes in supernatural ways. God is the one ultimately in control, not the laws of nature, and so while the laws of nature may normally be operative, that doesn't exclude supernatural actions by God.

These three points are, obviously, the barest of a bare bones discussion about miracles. It seems to me that all three could be correct. Some things we call miracles, aren't. Some miracles occur within the constraints of natural processes. Sometimes God intervenes directly and supernaturally in human activities.

So readers, what do you think?
    What are miracles?
    Do miracles happen?
    How do we know when something is a miracle?

I'm looking forward to reading what you think!

Physics and Faith

One of the things people say about Christianity is that Christians believe odd, impossible things. And well, they’re right. We do.
Virgin birth.
A being who is both God and human.
The existence of miracles.
The resurrection.
That’s just off the top of my head.
If we thought more about it, I’m sure we could add to this list. We Christians believe some odd, impossible things.
And that’s why I find quantum mechanics so comforting. Yes, comforting. Because it is odd and and full of impossible things. Now, quantum mechanics  doesn’t prove any of what Christians believe. What quantum physics does is show us the oddness of the world. It is proof that rational, logical thought doesn’t completely explain the universe.
Now some of you are thinking, “Wait a minute, quantum mechanics is based on math which is rational and logical.” And you are right (At least I think you are. The math required to understand quantum mechanics is well beyond my abilities. I believe have to believe physicists when they tell me that quantum mechanics is based and supported by math.)
What I am talking about is the sort of rational, logical processes that allow us to think our way into a subject and understand it. You can’t think your way into quantum mechanics. It is simply too much at odds with the way the world that we know works.
I’m no physicist. but I find quantum physics fascinating.
Light can be both a wave and a particle.
A particle doesn’t exist in a particular location in space and time until it is observed.
We cannot know precisely both the location of a particle and its direction of motion at the same time.
The physical properties of a “thing” don’t exist until they are measured.
In the quantum world, milk can unspill and eggs unbreak.
And of course Schrodinger’s Cat.
That is just odd. Impossible. Not logical. Not rational. And yet it’s true.
To quote British scientist J.B.S.Haldane, “Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” #
None of this proves Christianity, but it does undercut the argument that science is rational and Christianity isn’t.
We don’t “think” our way into quantum mechanics and we don’t “think” our way into faith. To be sure, we have to think and think hard about both. But thinking alone won’t do the job. At some point we have to do the work required to experience and understand both faith and physics. To truly understand, either quantum mechanics or Christianity, we have to enter into the practices, learn the disciplines of both.
The oddness of the universe makes the oddness of Christianity more believable. Physics doesn’t prove Christianity. But what quantum mechanics and Christianity both want to tell us is that the world isn’t exactly as it seems. It’s much, much more peculiar and much, much more wonderful than it seems.

# When Haldane lived the word “queer” meant odd or peculiar and was not a reference to one’s sexual orientation. Sometimes this quote is attributed to Arthur Eddington.
Here is a link to a video of a conversation between Stephen Colbert (out of character) and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. It’s a bit long, 84 minutes, but well worth your time. It’s funny, smart and informative.

"God According to God"

There is no shortage of books on the topic of science and religion, there is much to chose from. One of my goals with these monthly posts is to suggest resources that will further the conversation between science and religion. Many Christians (myself included) don't read much outside our own faith tradition. As a way to begin to remedy that oversight, I want to bring Jewish author Gerald L. Schroeder's book, God According to God: A Scientist Discovers We've Been Wrong About God All Along to your attention. Schroeder is a physicist (he has a Ph.D. in physics and earth science from MIT) and a bible scholar. He has spent much of his professional life searching for and exploring the spiritual and physical unity in the world.

Schroeder's students, like many of us, wonder if God is in control why isn't the world perfect? He suggests that the problem isn't with God, as that question assumes. Rather the problem is with our "stunted perception of the biblical God that we imbibe in our youthful years".

So we grow up retaining this childhood notion of an all-powerful, ever present, ever involved, never erring Creator. Unfortunately, that image fails when as adults we discover that the facts of life are often brutally at odds with this popular, though misguided piece of wisdom.... By abandoning preconceived notions of the Author of creation and replacing them with the Bible's description and nature's display of God- we will learn about God according to God.

I'll confess that I have not finished reading this book, but so far I'm enjoying it immensely. Reading Jewish commentaries on Old Testament texts have always been enriching experiences for me. I am finding the insights of a Jewish scientist on the relationship between science and religion equally enriching. You and I may or may not agree with all of Schroeder's ideas but our thinking about science and scripture and God will be expanded and enhanced by them.

What interfaith or non Christian resources have you found helpful as you think about the relationship between science and religion?

Thanks to the Grand Dialogue Book discussion group for introducing me to this book.

Why?

Sometimes I wonder why things are the way they are. Today I want to ask your thoughts on a particular question to see if you can help me understand. Why has it become so important that Genesis chapters one and two be interpreted literally? Why those particular chapters? This is not a science and religion question. This is a Bible interpretation question.

Many of us who take the Bible seriously believe that if our lived experience conflicts with what we believe a particular Biblical text says, we need to re-evaluate our interpretation of that text. It seems intuitively clear to us that there should be some congruity between the “real world” and what we believe God is communicating to us through the Bible. Of course sometimes the point of contact is that our ways and God’s way are quite different- but even then what is said about the human condition rings true to our experience.

Let me give you a couple of examples. A plain, literal reading of Mark 11:24 and Matt 18:19 suggests that if we and a couple of others, seriously, thoughtfully ask God for something or ask God to do something that those prayers will be answered. Now, I don’t know about you, but my experience is not that simple- I ask, God gives. It just doesn’t happen all that often to me or to anyone I know.

Now some of you are already forming a response to my example by thinking of an alternative understanding text. You might be thinking ,the plain reading of the text says this but it can also be read to mean something somewhat different, something more complex, more nuanced. And that is my point. When my experience of prayer doesn’t match what I think the Bible says, I re-evaluate my interpretation. I don’t assume my experience is false. I don’t assume the Bible is bunk. I assume my interpretation is flawed and needs to be rethought.

Here’s another example. In Matthew 10:34, Jesus says “Do not think I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” This statement is not in harmony with other things Jesus says. Such as blessed are the peacemakers. Love your enemies. And so on. Our experience of Jesus in the rest of the gospel doesn’t match with the plain, literal meaning of this text. So we have to think again about what Jesus might mean in Matt 10:34.

If you have spent much time in Bible study, it’s very common for someone at the end of the session to say something like, “I’ve read that story a hundred times. I always thought it was about A and today because of our discussion, it seems to be about B. I have never thought about it from this perspective before.” Someone thought they understood the meaning of a text and as a result of discussion and hearing other people’s experiences and their own experience, a new understanding emerges for them.

We change what we think various texts mean fairly often based on how our experiences and the text interact.

So here’s the question. Why are some of us so opposed to reinterpreting Genesis one and two? If a plain reading of the text doesn’t match with experience, in this case evolutionary biology and cosmology, why wouldn’t it be appropriate to adjust our interpretation of it? Changing our interpretation does not mean we do not take the Bible seriously. It does mean we don’t take our interpretation so seriously. We allow for interpretive mistakes, we allow for growth in understanding, we allow for nuance and complexity. Perhaps we even allow ourselves to say we don’t fully understand.

So here again is my question. Why, for some of us, are the first chapters of Genesis exempt from any re interpretation that moves away from a plain literal reading?

I’d like to know, what do you think?

Cross posted at Conversation in Faith

A Leap of Truth

When I began writing this monthly post, I promised to, from time to time, share helpful resources with you. And so…

The folks at Biologos are featuring short video clips from the forthcoming documentary “A Leap of Truth”. These short 5-6 minute clips are designed for use in small groups or high school and adult education classes. Here is the link to the first one, “Evolutionary Creation”. Subsequent video clips (to date) are “The Book of Genesis”, “The Fall”, “Paul’s Adam”, and “Framing the Debate”.

And just for completeness sake, here is a link to the trailer. It doesn’t appear that the documentary has been released yet. And of course these clips on the Biologos site are great marketing. Never the less, these clips are well done, and feature well know participants in the science and religion dialogue.

That’s all I have to say this month- short and to the point. I would prefer you spent some time watching these clips. Then come on back, and tell us what you think and how you might use them in your church or ministry.

Neurobiology and Free Will

Whoops, I'm a day early....

Theologians love to debate issues of free will, human agency and sin. Neurobiology has much to add to the conversation. Consider this case study.

In 2003, neurologist from the Virginia Health System reported on a forty-year- old male schoolteacher who, throughout the year 2000, collected pornographic magazines and increasingly frequented pornographic web sites emphasizing images of children and adolescents. He also solicited prostitution at “massage parlors.” He later noted that he regarded these activities as unacceptable, and that he had gone to great lengths to conceal them, but found that he was unable to stop himself from acting repeatedly on his sexual impulses. “The pleasure principle overrode” his urge restraint, he explained.

When his stepdaughter reported his subtle advances toward her to his wife, his wife discovered his growing preoccupation with child pornography and called the police. He was legally removed from the home, diagnosed as a pedophile, found guilty of child molestation, and sentenced either to an in-patient rehabilitation program for sexual addiction or to prison. Despite his strong desire to avoid jail, he was unable to restrain himself from soliciting sexual favors from women at the rehabilitation center, both staff and other clients, with the result that he was to be imprisoned.

On the eve of his sentencing, complaining of a headache, he went to the emergency room of a local hospital; admitting to suicidal ideation and a fear that he would rape his landlady, he was admitted for neurological observation. The medical staff reported that, during examination, he solicited female members of the neurological team for sexual favors. A magnetic resonance image (MRI) scan found an egg-sized tumor displacing the right orbitofrontal lobe, an area of the brain commonly implicated in moral-knowledge acquisition and social integration. Upon removal of the tumor, his sexually lewd behavior receded to the point that he was believed no longer to pose a threat to his stepdaughter and he returned home. Within a year, he developed a persistent headache and began collecting pornographic materials. Magnetic resonance imaging disclosed tumor regrowth, resulting in further surgery to remove the regrowth, after which his symptoms subsided. *

Was this school teacher responsible for his actions? Was he capable of free will? However philosophers parse the term “free will”, it seems clear enough that, in this case, the capacity to choose was lacking. As the attending neurologists Burns and Swerdlow comment, that his symptoms resolved with the tumor resection, twice, established a causal relationship from this man’s tumor to his sociopathic behavior. What is more, the narrative of his medical and behavioral history demonstrated that his sociopathy was the product of his loss of impulse control rather then a loss of moral knowledge or moral compass.

From Joel B. Green’s Bible, Soul, and Human Life:The Nature of Humanity in the Bible (Baker Academic:2008):73-74.

While we don’t want to claim that all immoral or illegal behavior is “nothing but” biology, neither can we claim that our decisions are unaffected by biology. Green’s example is unique but it does raise interesting questions about free will and personal responsibility. New information about the way our brains work may require us to think in more complex and nuanced ways about sin, free will, consciousness and what it means to be human.

How do we help each other think about these issues in ways that take both science and the Christian tradition seriously? What might we lose and what might we gain from bringing neurobiology into theological conversations?

Science and Religion

There are many things that fuel the so called conflict between science and religion. Based on my experience, one of the biggest problems is Biblical illiteracy and the concomitant lack of Bible interpretation skills. If folks had better interpretive skills and knowledge about the Bible, a significant amount of the science and religion pseudo conflict would vanish.

It seems to me there are three basic concepts that people miss which then can send them off into odd interpretive places.

First is the very common idea that the Bible is some sort of instruction manual, guide book or set of lessons with practical applications. Can we go to Scripture and find wise advise for how to live our lives? Of course. But that is not, in my estimation, the primary reason we have been given the Bible.

The Bible is the story of God's relationship with us. It is story in the most honest and truthful sense of the word story. The Bible tells God's story, the story in which we find our place and is not the answer book given to solve all our personal problems.

The second concept is the idea that the only serious, faithful reading of scripture is a literal reading. I have been surprised at the number of well education Christian people I know who do not realize the church has a long, very long tradition of faithfully reading the Bible using a variety of interpretive methods. Long before Darwin and the Scope's Trial and Creationism and Intelligent Design, people realized that there were other ways of reading Genesis 1 and 2 than as historical fact. Reading Genesis in a way other than as the recitation of historical scientific facts about creation is not a modern accommodation of evolution but a way of engagement of the text with a long tradition in the church.

These are two rather significant shifts in the way one reads the Bible. There is no way around that. This entails some major relearning for some people. For other people, these two concepts open up a way of faithful, serious engagement with the Bible that can be liberating.

This is what I tell people, who ask, about Genesis 1 and 2- These chapters are not about science. These chapters are not given to us to tell us how the world was created. These chapters are given to us to tell us about the Creator of the world. The text isn't interested in proving that God created the universe. The text assumes that God created the universe. And the text wants to tell us about that God. Who that God is, how that God acts, the ways that God relates to all that was created.

To believe that these chapters in Genesis are not a historical accounting of an event is not to believe theses chapters are not true. Which brings us to the third idea that aids Biblical interpretation. The truth is not merely equivalent to the facts. This is a difficult idea for modern people, people who were raised in the age of science. Our assumption is that if we know the "facts", we will know the truth. But somethings are not reducible to facts. For example- Love. Beauty. Justice.

Dick Murray in his book, Teaching the Bible to Adults and Youth, suggests that we ask three questions when we read the Bible.

What does this tell us about God?

What does this tell us about the relationship between God and humans?

What does this tell us about the relationship between humans?

The order is important and the questions are deceptively simple yet incisive. They are questions that help us think about truth rather than facts.

All three of these concepts deserve a more complete discussion than I have given them here. But as a starting point, what do you think? Is this a useful approach to help lessen the idea of a conflict between science and religion?

******

This is more than an academic exercise, my friend Bill Tammeus writes about the important of science and religion to work together in health care.

********

There are three books I recommend on the topic of Biblical Interpretation, Eugene Peterson's Eat This Book, Chapter 5 of N. T. Wright's New Testament and the People of God (Actually I hope you read the entire book but chapter 5 is what this post is about), and Micheal W. Goheen and Craig Bartholomew's The True Story of the Whole World: Finding your Place in the Biblical Drama. What would you add to this list?

What does it mean to be a human being?

Most of us believe that humans are different than other animals. We know that fish are different than birds, which are different from reptiles. There are distinctions between these animal groups, which is why we can call some creatures "Swordfish" and other creatures "Robins" and not be confused about which is which.

Animals can do some amazing things that we can’t do. Breath underwater, fly, use echolocation, migrate long distances to someplace they have never been before without getting lost, jump several times their height, smell all sorts of odors we can’t. We could go on and on. At the same time, certain abilities cross over classes. Birds and bats (mammals) fly. Fish, mammals and birds swim. Insects and reptiles and mammals can jump. Certain abilities are found in multiple kinds of quite different animals.

Humans have always wanted to claim we have particular abilities which are unique to humans. What would those abilities be? What makes us uniquely different than other animal?

Tool making?

Language?

Culture?

Learning?

Morality?

Well,i the interesting news is that scientists can find examples of all these traits in animals. These abilities, just like the ability to swim or fly, cross over classes.

Some would claim that the differences between animals and humans are of degree and not kind. Other animals make and use tools but human made tools are much more complex than anything any other animal makes. Animals communicate but none have the complexity of human language and certainly none (that we know of) have a written form of language. A wolf pack might enforce ideals of right and wrong behavior but the level of sophistication of human morality is far beyond any animal moral code. For some, what makes us distinct is the complexity of our language, culture, tools, morality, etc. But is complexity enough to claim distinction?

Are there qualities that humans have that no other animals have?

I'm not sure that we ought to expect science to illuminate what makes us uniquely human. Based on all that we have learned, even just the past 20 years, it seems the trend in science may well be to blur the distinction between humans and other animals. We may not be as biologically unique as we think we are. Which suggests that we ought to look somewhere else in our search of the location of our unique status in the world.

Additionally ethologists are discovering forms of culture and morality in animals, so the answer may not lie there either.

I want to suggest that our human distinctiveness is found in our relationship with God, and specifically our vocation given from God. I would be very reluctant to hold the position that humans are the only living creatures with a relationship with God. At best, all I can say is I don’t know. It is certainly not beyond the abilities of God to be in relationship with other animals.

What I would claim is that we humans have been given a particular vocation by God and this is what makes us unique and human. Humans are given responsibility for creation. We named the other creatures( Gen 2:19-20). We are charged to till and keep (Gen 2:15). I think it is our calling which makes us unique. As those who bear the image of God, we are called to care for the earth as God cares for it. This calling appears to be ours alone. Other creatures don't have this responsibility and this power. We can nurture or we can destroy. Godlike power has been given to us.

Would we act differently if we understood our humanity to mean responsibility for the planet? Would we act differently if we believed that to be created in the image of God meant we ought to care for creation in the same way God cares for us? Would we act differently if we stopped thinking we were the best and smartest creature, the reason the world exists and began thinking we were here to serve and protect and nurture others?

I wonder. What do you think?

*******

This topic, what it means to be human and the ways humans, animals and God interact has been an interest of mine for a long time. If you are interested, I have written more about this on my blog, www.conversationinfaith.wordpress.com. Probably the best way to find the posts is to look under the categories "animals" and "human". Here is the first post on this topic.

Chimps and Humans

What is it that makes us human? If you ask people that question, often their answer describes ways they believe we are different than animals. We have language, we use tools, we have culture, we transmit knowledge from one person to another, we are self aware, we have souls. Until fairly recently scientists would have given similar responses to that question as would theologians.

Every now and again one runs across something that makes one wonder about the differences between humans and other animals. Consider this report in Science Daily about the actions of a group of chimpanzees toward a dying member of their group.

In the days leading up to the chimp's death, the group was very quiet and paid close attention to her, the researchers report. Immediately before she died, she received much grooming and caressing from the others, who appeared to test her for signs of life as she died. They left her soon after, but her adult daughter returned and remained by her mother all night. When keepers removed the mother's body the next day, the chimpanzees remained calm and subdued. For several days they avoided sleeping on the platform where the female had died, even though it was normally a favored sleeping spot, and remained subdued for some time after the death.

This week Science Daily published another story describing observations about the actions of mother chimpanzees after the deaths of their infants. While many animals recognize that a dead animal is different than an alive animal, the reactions described in these two articles describes something more. They describe the recognition of the death of a particular individual and what appears to be a sense of loss or mourning.

James Anderson, one of the researchers whose work is described in the article has this to say about his observations.

"Several phenomena have at one time or another been considered as setting humans apart from other species: reasoning ability, language ability, tool use, cultural variation, and self-awareness, for example, but science has provided strong evidence that the boundaries between us and other species are nowhere near to being as clearly defined as many people used to think,"..."The awareness of death is another such psychological phenomenon. The findings we've described, along with other observations of how chimpanzees respond to dead and dying companions, indicate that their awareness of death is probably more highly developed than is often suggested. It may be related to their sense of self-awareness, shown through phenomena such as self-recognition and empathy towards others."

The previously sharp distinctions between other animals and humans are blurring as we learn more about other animals.

The knowledge we have gained about the complexity of animals' lives is fascinating and gives us much to think about as we ponder who we are as human beings and what our relationship with other animals ought to be.

What makes us human?

What I want to suggest today, is that what makes us human is not our biological uniqueness. What makes humans distinct from other animals is our particular vocation, our calling to care for other animals and God's creation. As Christians we are called to love God and to love our neighbor. Who is our neighbor? The answer to that question may cross species lines.

There is, of course, much more to be said about all this- too much for one blog posting. But lets talk about it via the comments.

*****

This is an area that is of interest to me. I have written several posts about these ideas on my blog, if you would like to read more.

And an apology: For some reason, the block quote tool and I have "issues" and the formatting after the block quotes doesn't return to normal. I was able to make a distinction in font and font size that I hope makes it clear where the block quotes begin and end and my comments begin.

Aflockalypse Now

You may have heard the news, a lot of birds died in Arkansas this past week. This news was followed by reports of bird and fish deaths around the world. For those who bothered to do a modicum of research, these recent bird deaths are just not that uncommon. On average there are 163 incidents like this every year.


What most of us probably won't hear about is the final assessment of the causes of these incidents . Our 24/7 news cycle and our short attention spans will have moved on to newer stories.

If you spent some time with the story, you may also have hear some of the, shall we say, interesting speculation about what caused these deaths, even from “responsible” news media. This ABC news report talks about the birds committing suicide.

But what brings this story to our attention here is the not unexpected theological explanations for these events. Science and theology meet in silly ways once again.

Here is Kirk Cameron's view on the bird deaths and end times as aired on CNN. You might wonder why an actor with a movie to plug is asked about this,were there no theologians available for comment?

All this talk about the apocalypse (or aflockalypse in this context- sorry I just can't help it) reminded me of a Bible study on Revelation I was part of, just a couple of years ago. This was in a Presbyterian church, so the study was full of well educated, thoughtful, faithful people. Yet for many of them there was real anxiety about studying Revelation. There were worried about what might be in the text.

I have conservative Christians friends who have definite ideas about “the end times”. They have a coherent biblically based theology of Christ's return. I think they are mistaken in their conclusions and reading of Scripture but they have put considerable effort into thinking about this. I have progressive Christian friends who have no sense of what it means to believe that Christ will come again, other than a sense of unease. They suspect something is not quite right with the rapture/left behind theologies, but they have no idea what that might be or what an appropriate alternate theology might be.

This poor theology about Christ's return- both the end times/left behind crowd and the clueless progressives- coupled with shallow science backgrounds, causes us to deal poorly with the ecological events we encounter.

Because our biology and ecology knowledge is weak, many of us cannot conceive of a natural accounting of these bird deaths. We don't know where to look to find a scientifically based discussion and we don't understand what it means when we receive scientifically based explanation.

Because our theological understanding is weak, we fall prey to odd theologies based on a false understanding of what biblical prophecy is and a misunderstanding of how God works in the world. (Did anyone else wince when Kirk Cameron spoke his death as God ending his life?).

The church can't do much directly about poor science education. But the theological shortcomings are our responsibility. The coverage of these recent bird deaths is just the latest example and a fairly innocuous one, of the way that poor theology impacts our engagement of science and vice versa. Much more serious is the theology that is being brought into the climate change debate as outlined in this New York Times blog.

My question today is why are Presbyterians (and other mainline denominations) so reluctant to offer an alternative view of the second coming of Christ? What we think about the reign of God and how God accomplished God's intentions for the world shapes our world view. And that affects how we think about environmental issues. What we think about climate change, energy use, air quality, toxins in the environment and other issues is influenced by our reading of scripture and our beliefs about the kingdom of God. Are we just along for the ride- God's in control and we have little impact, or do we bear significant responsibility for our actions?

It seems to me the "conflict" between science and religion isn't only about beginnings, what we think about the end matters too.

What Are We?

Underneath the flash and spark of the science and religion debates are some real issues that reflect some real differences of world view. One of these, I think, are differing ideas about what a human being is. What do you think we are?

Here are your choices: *

1. We are made of one "part"
a. a physical body only. (materialism)
b. spirited bodies, incarnated souls, (physicalism)

2. We are made of two "parts" (dualism)
a. a body and a soul
b. a body and a mind

3. We are made up of three parts, body, soul, and spirit. (trichotomism)

4. We are made up of one "part" which is spiritual or mental (idealism).

So, what did you pick? Was it hard to decide? Is this a topic you have given much thought to?

Nancey Murphy in her book, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies, suggests that most people haven't thought very seriously about this. That's a shame, because as she points out, our view of what a person "is" affects our opinions about many modern concerns. Abortion, end of life, stem cell research- just to name a few.

Historically the mainstream Christian position has been dualism. Murphy contends that much of our Christian thinking about this has been more heavily influenced by Greek and Roman philosophy and less influenced by scripture. The Old Testament, for the most part, assumes a robust physicalism. This is not the "nothing but" materialism of modern reductionism which claims humans are nothing but our physical bodies and so genetics, endocrinology and the rest of science can account for all that we are. In the Hebrew Bible, people were understood to be unities of body, mind, and soul. We cannot be separated into component parts. Sometimes this idea is expressed by the phrase "incarnated souls" or "spirited bodies". The New Testament writers reflect the variety of first century opinions about what constitutes a human being but are more concerned about relationship.

So the Greek philosophers we have surveyed were interested in the question:what are the essential parts that make up a human being? In contrast, for the biblical authors each "part" ("part" in scare quotes" stands for the whole person thought of from a certain angle. For example, "spirit" stands for the whole person in relation to God. What the New Testament authors are concerned with, then, is human beings in relationship to the natural world, to the community and to God. Paul's distinction between spirit and flesh is not our later distinction between soul and body. Paul is concerned with two ways of living: one in conformity with the Spirit of God, and the other in conformity to the old aeon before Christ. (21-22)

So Murphy argues that there is no clear definitive Biblical teaching about what a human being is. Therefore, she believes Christians in our time are free to, and should, rethink our beliefs about what a human being is and that we should use the findings of modern science as well as scripture to help us do this.

Murphy acknowledges that there will have to be "adjustments" made to certain Christian beliefs but she contends that on the whole, they will be helpful. For example, physicalism could help Christians embrace a strong belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. And, it could help encourage an appreciation for the physical world- our bodies included- that would discourage an "other worldliness" that sometimes keeps us from acting in this world.

I have to confess, I haven't finished her book yet. I'm reading it as part of a science and religion book discussion group and I haven't read ahead. It will be interesting to think more about this as she makes her case for physicalism.

But I am wondering about the implications of physicalism for the science and religion dialogue.

If more Christians adopted a physicalist view, would that remove some of the stumbling blocks in the science and religion dialogue? Removing dialogue stumbling blocks is not an adequate reason to adopt the physicalist position. But what if after serious study and prayer and discussion, physicalism became a more commonly held belief? Would we stop debating about souls and start focusing on entire people?

Certainly this view of humanity, physicalism is a more complex accounting of humans than the "nothing but-ism" of some materialists. There still might be too big a difference to overcome. How ever, not all scientists are materialists, and some are very willing to engage a more complex view of human kind.

What do you think? Is physicalism a view that Christians could faithfully adopt? Would a physicalist anthropology help resolve some of the science and religion tensions?


********


Adapted from Nancey Murphy's book Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?, Current Issues in Theology, Iain Torrance, editor. Cambridge University Press: 2006.

Eggs, Salmonella, and Theology

Been avoiding eggs recently? In case you have been savoring the last days of summer media free (and good for you), 550 million eggs have been recalled because of contamination with salmonella, and 1469 people have become ill. Here is a link to a summary of the events. Here is what the FDA, the CDC, the Humane Society, and the Egg producers have to say about it. Finally, here is an article that begins to explore some of the complexities of the issues.

There have been calls for improved inspections and safety regulations. Many people who were previously unaware of how eggs are produced received a glimpse into modern factory farming.

Those are good things, but what if we try to think theologically about this situation. Would our response be different? Does our faith inform our response? What does theology and scripture have to do with chickens, eggs, salmonella and modern farming?



The first place to start is with the chickens. Modern poultry farming practices are not designed to be cruel, they are designed to be efficient. But we need to ask if efficiency at the expense of animal welfare is acceptable? What level of confinement is humane? How do we keep chickens healthy and safe? Should we be concerned about their happiness? Do modern poultry farming practices reflect our biblical mandate to care for creation? Do they reflect God's vision of shalom?

The next set of questions concerns our life together. Rural American needs jobs. Does the desirablility of jobs in rural America over ride other concerns? What about the environmental challenges of “factory farms”? How much pesticide use is acceptable? How much waste run off, is acceptable?

What about wages, and the health and safety concerns of farm workers? Farming is dangerous work. What does scripture say about our responsibilities toward each other and toward the evironment? Profitability may be the “chief end” of business, but should it be the only one? Or are there other concerns which should be “chief ends” as well? When choices must be made, how do we know what to prioritize?


The reformed tradition has understood that our work, whether we are workers, management or owners is to glorify God. What does that look like in modern agriculture? Are business owners required by their faith to sacrifice their profit for the common good? What if doing good puts your business at such a disadvantage that your business may not survive?



Finally, what about the poor? According to the USA Today article I linked you to above, "regular" eggs cost $1.10 nationally, cage free eggs $2.99 and organic eggs $4.89. Is it just to increase the price of a food by nearly three times? Given the increasing numbers of food insecure people in the US, is reforming egg production (or any agricultural practice) a luxury we cannot afford? Must we choose between chickens and people? Can we care for both?

I have asked a lot of questions today; and hard questions at that. Normally bloggers are all about answers - we can be an opinionated bunch. As a nation we are also all about the solution, and the faster we have a solution the better. But fast solutions are often superficial solutions. It seems to me, we might have better solutions, if we spend time pondering the complexities of a problem. And particularly if our pondering is theologically driven. Can theological reflection give rise to actual concrete, workable solutions?

I'd like to know, what do you think?

Bridging the Gap: Science and Religion

Is the gap between science and religion unbridgeable? There are people who hope so. There are scientists who are as afraid of religion (in particular Christianity) as there are Christians who are afraid of science. Each side fears that the other is determined to destroy them. While this is a sad state of affairs, there is more room for optimism than one might think.

Elaine Howard Ecklund has written a very interesting book, Science vs.Religion: What Scientists Really Think, (2010: Oxford University Press). Over four years as part of the Religion among Academic Scientists Study, she surveyed nearly 1700 scientists and conducted 275 one on one conversations with scientists at 25 of the top research universities in the US. The book contains some fascinating information. Today we can only touch on a very few items.

When scientists were asked about their belief in God, 34% said they did not believe in God (vs. 2 % of the US population). Nine percent of scientists “have no doubts about God's existence” (v 63 % of the US population). Thirty percent of the scientists surveyed are agnostic (v 4% of the US population). And here is the interesting figure, 27% of scientists say “I believe in a higher power, but it is not God” or “I believe in God sometimes” or “I have some doubts, but I believe in God” (V 31% of the US population). (Ecklund, 16)

So 36% of scientists at elite universities believe in God or some sort of higher power. That is a sizable percentage and more than I would have guessed.

Regarding the religious affiliation of scientists, not surprisingly, 53 % have no religious affiliation and only 2% are Evangelical Protestants. However, 14 % are mainline Protestants. (Ecklund, 15).

Sometimes people assume that serious engagement with science causes people to lose their faith. Ecklund's work suggests otherwise. While there are some scientists who lose their faith because of their training in science or because of damaging religious experiences, most non-believing scientists come from non-religious or nominally religious families. (Ecklund, 13-27) These scientists did not lose their faith, because for all intents and purposes they had no faith to lose.

This is important to recognize because this means, among other things, that these scientists have limited experience with Christians. They do not know the range of Christian belief with respect to science. All they know are the extreme caricatures of Christianity that are present in society. This also means, that these scientists lack the language, the vocabulary to speak with people of faith. They don't know who we are or how to talk with us.

Two more bits of data:

When these scientists were asked their opinion about religious truth, 26% agreed with the statement “There is very little truth in any religion. Three percent agreed with the statement, “There is the most truth in only one religion. But 71 % agreed with the statement, “There are basic truths in many religions”. (Ecklund, 35) There are a substantial number of scientists who are willing to acknowledge that religious truths exist.

Approximately 28% of scientists are part of a religious tradition but do not know if they believe in God or not. Scientists may self identify as agnostic because as scientists they have been trained to seek a high level of certainty in their beliefs. The level of “evidence” required for a scientist to claim certainty may temper their statements of belief. (Ecklund, 36)


Ecklund makes two other interesting observations (actually, there are many interesting observations in her book and I am just mentioning two). Scientists who are Christians feel very alone at work. They feel that their colleagues would not approve if their faith were known. They are concerned about ridicule and harassment. They are concerned that their work as scientists would be devalued if their faith were made public. There is a perceived culture of religious intolerance in science departments at elite universities. (These same scientists are also often uncomfortable in church, thinking that their fellow believers disapprove of science.)


But interestingly, Ecklund also discovered, “What religious scientists fail to realize, is that a significant proportion of their colleagues, although not religious themselves, are open to talking and thinking about matters of faith. Some are even looking for scientists with faith traditions to help them connect better with a religiously believing American public. These “open but non believing” scholars are looking in particular for models like Francis Collins- even though he is an outspoken evangelical- to serve as boundary pioneers leading the way crossing the picket lines of the science and religion debates. But because religious scientists rarely talk candidly about their faith in the science environment, they are not aware of these open but non believing scientists. The actions, then, of both groups end up perpetuating closeted faith, further hardening an embedded custom that religion should not be discussed in universities and science environments." (Ecklund, 48)

What Ecklund found is that the people most able to bridge the gap between science and religion, religious scientists, feel that they cannot be open about their faith. There are many scientists who lack the basic information they need to seriously engage people of faith because they come from non-religious or nominally religious backgrounds. In addition, there are also non-believing scientists who are interesting in discussing the ways science and religion interact.

My question to us in the mainline church is, “How can we facilitate this discussion between scientists?” Is there a way for us in the mainline protestant churches in particular to create safe places for conversation? How do we support the scientists in our congregations? What do you think?

Science, Religion, and a Cup of Tea

What is the relationship between science and religion? Thinking about this relationship and the various options can help you clarify your own thinking and help you properly understand the various discussions, debates and diatribes you may encounter. Understanding the other person's view on the relationship between science and religion can help you avoid a lot of talking past each other's conversations. I find it saves much frustration and for better or worse, shortens many conversations.

There are several kinds of relationships possible between science and religion.

Conflict: Either science or religion must emerge the winner. Religion has nothing to say to science. Or science must be completely subordinate to religion. This, of course, is the position of both science and religion fundamentalists.

Independence: Science and religion each have their own realm and don't have any reason to interact. "Religion tells us how to go to heaven, science tells us how the heavens go." This is where Stephen Jay Gould's Non overlapping magisteria idea might best fit. Science and religion each have their place but there is no "overlap" between the two disciplines.

Dialogue/Consonance: Science and religion each have their own realm and sometimes influence and interact with each other. Where there is overlap, each discipline's position must fit with what the other says.

Integration/Assimilation: This relationship encourages harmony between science and religion. Ultimately science and religion aid each other in our understanding of all that is.

Most people have a sense that both science and religion are concerned with "truth". But sometimes we work with a narrow sense of what truth is. We simplify truth and try to make truth reducible to a one or two sentence summary. The "truth" is more complex. One or two sentences will not sufficiently embrace the complexity of our world and certainly doesn't encompass the "truth".

John Polkinghorne often uses the helpful example of a teapot to encourage us to recognize that our views need some complexity. If one sees a teapot boiling there is both a how and a why answer to explain what is going on. The kettle is boiling because the stove is turned on. The kettle is boiling because someone is making tea. Both these statements are true. We have a more full understanding of what is happening when we accept both statements as true. Each statement captures different aspects of the same event.

Likewise, there must be some logical relationship between statements.

" The statements 'I have put the kettle in the refrigerator'
and 'I intend to make a cup of tea' just don't fit together. Because of
this need to make mutual sense, science and religion will have things to say to
each other."

(Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity, Questions to Science and Religion, New York: Crossroads,15.)

Sometimes, both science and religion seek to answer questions that have "simple" answers.

How does water boil?

What is the chief end of man?

Why is the sky blue?

What is your only comfort in life and in death?

Sometimes it can appear that science and religion are actually non overlapping magisteria. But on deeper reflection the "simple" answers become increasingly complex. Answering the question, "Why does water boil?" can be as simple as explaining that someone turned the stove on or it can become a discussion of how a stove works, how electricity (or gas) works, or a discussion of thermodynamics.

Sometimes science and religion struggle with more complex questions that are of interest to both disciplines.

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Is this (the world, the universe) all there is?

Why do living things die?

What does it mean to be alive?

Each question can, like Polkinghorne's tea kettle, be answered by both science and religion. The answer of one discipline doesn't negate the answer of the other. I would suggest that we need the input of both.

I'd like to know, what do you think is the relationship between science and religion?

**********

The four possible relationships of science and religion are from John Polkinghorne's book, Science and Theology. Polkinghorne's discussion is aid by Ian Barbour's insights.

Stephen Jay Gould's proposal for non overlapping magisteria is found is his book, Rocks of Ages. An essay of Gould's on NOMA may be found here.

The answers to the "simple" questions are:
Boiling water, here
What is the chief end of Man? here
Why is the sky blue? here
What is your only comfort in life and in death? here

To read more about John Polkinghorne, see here.

To read more about Stephen Jay Gould, see here.

Christians and Oil Don't Mix. Or Should They?

I was going to write about octopuses this month. (By the way dictionaries are split on whether the plural is octopuses or octopi, with a slight edge to octopuses.) They are quite fascinating creatures.

Then the Gulf Oil spill happened, and it seemed that a "Science and Religion" blogger ought to write about that. But what to write? Everyone (mostly) thinks an oil spill is a bad thing. You don't need me to tell you an oil spill anywhere is a serious problem.

There is the topic of what we should do next, actually those are multiple topics. There are all sorts of issues surrounding environmental clean up and recovery. There are all sorts of legal and regulatory concerns. There is the whole tangled debate about energy sources and energy use. There are economic concerns. It's a complex web of issues, too much to write about in a single post.

So back to the intriguing, less contentious, and more fun topic of octopuses. Or not?

That's the problem isn't it? When faced with complex, difficult, and divisive topics we are prone to throw our hands in the air, proclaim it too difficult for mere mortals and think about something more entertaining, like octopuses.

This disaster, the gulf oil spill is complex. There are lots of ways to compound mistakes that have already been made. We can make some things worse while trying to make other things better.There are lots of opportunities to assign blame and to condemn. There are lots of reactions we can have, lots of solutions we can propose.

So where should the church be in all this? What is the role of people of faith?

Right in the middle of it. Speaking up and speaking out. This is where science and religion meet. Not to mention where economics and religion meet. And where politics and religion meet. We will all respond in various ways. We will have various proposals. But they should have one thing in common.

As Christians we start our thinking from a different place. Our response should not be based on how this affects the price of gas in my car. Or the price of fish I eat. Or what happens to my countries energy and foreign policy.

We are supposed to view the world with eyes focused on the kingdom of God. What are God's hope and desires for us and for the planet? We start our thinking from a different place. Not centered on ourselves but on the desires of God. It's crucial that we don't engage this problem with the eyes of the world. We are called to care for creation as God cares for it.

That's part of our call. It's not easy. It takes all of us. And germaine to this blog, it takes Christians seriously and thoughtfully engaging science. This is a time to dig into the science, to understand it's implications and then the think theologically about all that.

So friends, the floor is open for discussion. How do we do this? How do we help folks figure out, as best we can, what God's desire for us and the planet is? How do we help each other keep that perspective first and formost as we work through this difficult problem?

Faith and Dogma in Science and Religion

A couple of weeks ago I attended the annual Grand Dialogue Conference in Grand Rapids, MI. The speaker was Allan Wallace and his topic was "Experience, Reason, and Faith in Science and Religion: A Buddhist Perspective". Today I want to bring just a few of his ideas to you. His entire talk will be available soon at the Grand Dialogue website. His PowerPoint presentation is available now.

Wallace began by talking about the role of faith in both science and religion. It’s not common for us to think of science as a “faith based” enterprise, but if you ask working scientists they will tell you this is true. Wallace is in the presentation using a particular definition of faith - by "faith" he means "trust".

Science is based on faith in the discoveries of others. Scientists trust the results of others. No scientist redoes every experiment to prove its correctness for themselves. Scientists simply must trust each other. Scientists also have faith in the reliability of the equipment and methods they use. Galileo may have made his own telescope but today, few scientists make their own equipment. They must have trust in the people who make the instruments and they must trust those who maintain and repair them. Scientists must also rely on the public's faith in them and their work. They must have faith that others have faith in them. As Wallace pointed out, doing science is very expensive and science will not be funded it people don't have faith in the scientists and their results.

Faith plays a remarkably similar role in religion. Religions have faith in the revelations of "saints and sages". Religion has faith in the practices and teachings of the tradition. Finally Wallace says out that religion has "faith that the insights and realizations of past adepts can be replecated in the present." Now for people of faith, this discussion of faith is incomplete, but isn't it interesting the ways science and religion are both deeply dependent on the trustworthiness of others?

Wallace also talked about dogma. His definition of dogma is:

"A coherent universally applied worldview consisting of a collection of beliefs
and attitudes that call for a person's intellectual and emotional allegiance. A
dogma, therefore, has a power over individuals and communities that is far
greater that the power of mere facts and fact- related theories. Indeed, a dogma
may prevail despite the most obvious contray evidence, and commitment to a dogma
may grow all the more zealous when obstacles are met. Thus, dogmatists often
appear to be incapable of learning from any kind of experience that is not
authorized by the dictates of their creed."

Based on this definition, he then discussed dogmatism in religion and science. Religious dogmatism holds that the source of its beliefs is infallible and therefore its beliefs are true. Because its beliefs are true, its religions practices are the only valid practices.

Materialism on the other hand, claims that there is no other world beyond the physical, natural world and this natural, physical world is the sole source of knowledge. The only way to know about the world is by physical evidence.

Notice that Wallace has changed from talking about "science" to talking about "materialism" because certainly not all scientists are materialists. As a method, science excludes all supernatural or nonphysical entities because they can't be quantified or measured. Science as a method cannot have an opinion about the non physical. If the non physical exists, it exists outside the area of expertize of science. Also notice that he does not talk at all about God in his discussion. I suspect his goal was to point out particular areas of similarity and not give an exhaustive discussion of faith and dogma.

Wallace in his talk has quiet a bit more to say about knowledge and truth and his proposal for a way forward. You are invited to listen to his presentation to learn the rest. His presentation of faith and dogma reveal some interesting similarities between religion and materialism/scientism. So I would like to know, what do you think? Does this juxtaposition work? Is it valid? Is it helpful? Does discovering this common ground help us understand each other better?

I will have limited or no Internet access for the next several days. I have asked several questions and I am interested in your response but I won't be able to actively participate for about 10 day. until I return. So please discuss among yourselves and I will check in on April 5th.

Irreconcilable Differences?

70 % of emerging adults ( age 18-23) think “The teachings of science and religion often ultimately conflict with each other.”

Only 32% of emerging adults agree or strongly agree with the statement, “The findings of science and the teachings of religion are entirely compatible with each other.”

Lest you thing this is not “our” problem,

Among emerging adults who identify themselves as mainline Protestants,

74% believe science and religion are “often ultimately in conflict with each other” and only 28% believe that “The findings of science and the teachings of religion are entirely compatible…”

Sigh. I find these statistics from Souls in Transition, by Christian Smith and Patricia Snell (page 139) quite disheartening.

What happened?
I think many things conspired to cause this. The fault isn't simply science's. Or education's. The fault isn't only the churches. No there is plenty of blame to go around. We can all own a piece of this. But I don't want to talk so much about how we failed (although we need to give it some thought) but rather I want to talk about what we can do to correct this.

My hunch is most of the folks reading this are involved in the church, in one way or the other. So what does the church need to do? What do we need to do? I'd like to suggest a couple of things.

First the easy one. The popular conception is that scientist who are Christians are few and far between, an anomaly, statistical outliers, figments of someone’s imagination. The people in our congregations need to know that they actually know real scientists who are Christians.

We scientists are in every congregation and we need to tell our story. Not all of us want to preach, but some of us can. Not all of us want to teach church school, but some of us do. But we all need to be able to tell our story- how my faith shapes my work as a scientist. (actually all of us need to be able to tell our story, regardless of occupation, but that's a different article). I'm not primarily thinking about formal presentations but rather being able to talk about this in casual conversation, at a church dinner, after a committee meeting, over a cup of coffee. We will need some help figuring out how to tell our story, we need some encouragement to do this. So Presbyteries and local churches, teach us how to tell our story of science and faith.

I bet some of you are doing this. Please use the comments to tell us what you are doing.

Now for the hard ones. In all honesty I think the “conflict” between science and religion is in large part a result of bad Bible reading skills and poor theology. Here is a quote from Souls in Transition,

“[E]plaining why so many people view religion and science as conflicting, one
respondent observed, “I mean there is proven fact and then there is what’s
written in the Bible- and they don’t match up. So it’s kind of whatever you
wanna believe: there’s fact and there’s a book, and some people just don’t wanna
believe the truth.” ( page 158)

Somehow “truth” has become reduced to “facts” and “facts” are the sole constituent of “truth”. Facts of course, belong to science. The Bible is just a book. Faith, aka “blind faith” has no relationship to facts or to truth.

At this point, having raised several big topics, this post must become much longer or it’s time to stop. But,I don’t want to leave us with such a bleak picture. Good conversations have started- scientists speaking about their faith. Conversations about what science can and can’t do. Conversations about a faith that is more than personal opinion. Conversations about how modern people can read the Bible in a way that is faithful and uses their brains.

Here are two places to begin:
BioLogos has lots of resources, both video and print. Much of its content is designed to be accessible to non scientists and non theologians. But there is also plenty here for scientists and scholars.

Test of Faith, is a project of the Faraday Institute of Science and Religion, funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. Their material is created specifically for the non specialist and is a mixture of print and video materials.

Please add your own favorite resources to this list. How have you encouraged the conversation? What other sorts of help do you need? I'd like to know.