With some interesting new advancements it seems to add a twist to the issue.
19.4.10
Stem Cells
Ok, stem cells is a topic i haven't talked about much here. But ABC's Catalyst programme had a recent story on it.
With some interesting new advancements it seems to add a twist to the issue.
With some interesting new advancements it seems to add a twist to the issue.
9.3.10
Watches and Hands
On the weekend I sat through a sermon about ... well i'm not precisely sure. But it had a basic theme of 'God made everything so God is fantastic'. In it, there was a slight variation of the watchmaker analogy.
This version is a conversation. It finishes with one guy asking the other 'how can you look at your watch and deduce that it has a designer, and yet look at the complexity of the inner workings of your hand and believe it developed on it's own'. (Forgive any inaccuracy - i'm paraphrasing).
OK preachers, put your thinking caps on. I now present to you Occam's razor. It's a scientific concept (though Occam was a theologian) that recommends the simplest most-evident hypothesis over one that involves many assumptions (given that both hypotheses can explain the observed result).
For living things, the simplest and most evident hypothesis is gradual change over time. That is, i can do things now that i couldn't when i was aged five. However, my watch has not developed any new functions since i first received it - nor has it grown. Even if it could reproduce, or last forever, it would not improve. So the gradual improvement hypothesis is ruled out. In the case of the watch, we must proceed to the next most-evident explanation.
So, preachers of the world, please realise the inadequacy of this comparison. Apart from being a flimsy piece of reasoning - which repels scientific people and drives a wedge between faith and science - it sails awfully close to the wind in terms of denying evolution. That's probably a topic for another day, but to introduce additional (non-gospel) beliefs to Christianity does no-one any favours.
This version is a conversation. It finishes with one guy asking the other 'how can you look at your watch and deduce that it has a designer, and yet look at the complexity of the inner workings of your hand and believe it developed on it's own'. (Forgive any inaccuracy - i'm paraphrasing).
OK preachers, put your thinking caps on. I now present to you Occam's razor. It's a scientific concept (though Occam was a theologian) that recommends the simplest most-evident hypothesis over one that involves many assumptions (given that both hypotheses can explain the observed result).
For living things, the simplest and most evident hypothesis is gradual change over time. That is, i can do things now that i couldn't when i was aged five. However, my watch has not developed any new functions since i first received it - nor has it grown. Even if it could reproduce, or last forever, it would not improve. So the gradual improvement hypothesis is ruled out. In the case of the watch, we must proceed to the next most-evident explanation.
So, preachers of the world, please realise the inadequacy of this comparison. Apart from being a flimsy piece of reasoning - which repels scientific people and drives a wedge between faith and science - it sails awfully close to the wind in terms of denying evolution. That's probably a topic for another day, but to introduce additional (non-gospel) beliefs to Christianity does no-one any favours.
15.9.09
John Lennox
I've just been listening to an interview with John Lennox, professor of Mathematics at Oxford University. He has a few great lines (and thoughts) such as:
And on our very scientific ability as a pointer to God.
And on Genesis,
It's a very thoughtful interview - worth a listen.
There are two world views that are diametrically conflicting here - it's not science and religion. I see the conflict as not between science and religion at all - it's between world views, atheism and theism - and there's scientists on both sides.
And on our very scientific ability as a pointer to God.
If the thoughts in my mind are simply the random motions of atoms in my brain, why should I believe any theories they develop - including the one that my mind's composed of atoms.
And on Genesis,
I tend to start by thinking about the very fact that scripture claims there was a beginning. That's a stunning thing, because it took science up til the 1960s to get that far.
It's a very thoughtful interview - worth a listen.
10.8.09
Two Dimensions of Why?
I've been listening to an interview with Dr John Polkinghorne, particle physicist and theologian, and co-director of the Psychology and Religion Research Group at Cambridge University. His conclusion is that "under the skin, science or religion are cousins in the search for truth". While science is useful for explaining events, there's another dimension to reality.
He also gives the following metaphor of how science and religion work together to make sense of the world:
Ask a scientist, as a scientist, all that he or she can tell you about music and they'll say it's neural response; things firing off in our brains to the impact of soundwaves hitting the ear-drum. And of course that's true, and in its own way it's worth knowing. But there's much more to music. There is a deep mystery about music; that that succession of sounds in time can speak to us, and I think speak to us truly, of a timeless form of beauty.
He also gives the following metaphor of how science and religion work together to make sense of the world:
I mean we all know you can ask both the how question and the why question. The kettle's boiling because burning gas heats the water. The kettle's boiling, because I want to make a cup of tea and would you like to have one? I don't have to choose between those two answers, they're both true. And in fact if I'm going to understand the mysterious events of the boiling kettle, I need both answers. Similarly I need both science and religion. I need to be two-eyed when I look at the world.
30.4.09
Rethinking Repenting
So here's something i didn't realise. Apparently the word repent (used so frequently in the Christian vocabulary) is derived, grammatically speaking, from the same word as pensive - meaning thoughtful.
So, the word repent (whatever connotations it may have picked up over the years) actually means to re-think, or to think again. It struck me that this is what we do in science. When we obtain new evidence or data, we rethink our hypothesis - our view of the situation.
Biblically, there are several examples of people who re-thought their viewpoint - on the basis of Jesus. Matthew (the gospel writer) and St Paul are the first that come to mind - although Jesus's disciple Thomas could also qualify. While these men weren't officially scientists, their new conclusions were based on the evidence presented to them.
So, the word repent (whatever connotations it may have picked up over the years) actually means to re-think, or to think again. It struck me that this is what we do in science. When we obtain new evidence or data, we rethink our hypothesis - our view of the situation.
Biblically, there are several examples of people who re-thought their viewpoint - on the basis of Jesus. Matthew (the gospel writer) and St Paul are the first that come to mind - although Jesus's disciple Thomas could also qualify. While these men weren't officially scientists, their new conclusions were based on the evidence presented to them.
5.2.09
Science and Faith - Together Again
One of my primary motivations for putting together this blog was to dispell the myth of any non-compatibility between science and faith.
It seems that there are many people also of this view. So much so, that Evolution Weekend will be celebrated in many churches around the globe. This year, the weekend (Feb 13-15) marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. It is also described as
The website for the event also contains a clergy letter signed by 11,000 Christian clergy. The weekend also aims to make clear that those claiming people must choose between religion and science are creating a false dichotomy. Their aim is also to demonstrate that religion and science have much to offer each other.
Bravo!
It seems that there are many people also of this view. So much so, that Evolution Weekend will be celebrated in many churches around the globe. This year, the weekend (Feb 13-15) marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. It is also described as
...an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science, and to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems to their faith.
The website for the event also contains a clergy letter signed by 11,000 Christian clergy. The weekend also aims to make clear that those claiming people must choose between religion and science are creating a false dichotomy. Their aim is also to demonstrate that religion and science have much to offer each other.
Bravo!
24.1.09
4 Circle Diagram
One of the great things about science (and also engineering) is the diagram. So it's no surprise that when people ask MIT science graduate James Choung about God, he explains using a diagram...
30.10.08
God and Gravity
I was forwarded this the other day. It's by a guy called Jim Taylor
Similarly (though a few thousand years earlier) St Paul, in his letter to the church in Rome, writes "Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made."
..if I were going to worship something other than God, I think I would choose gravity.
Gravity does more than just drop apples on Isaac Newton’s head. It causes water to flow downhill, carving ravines and canyons. It causes cliffs to crumble. It wraps a thin skin of atmosphere around the earth. It holds the earth - and the other planets - in stable orbit around the sun.
Yet gravity surrounds us, envelops us, so completely, so universally, that most of us are completely unaware of its presence.
Which is, now that I start to think about it, a pretty good description of how most of us perceive God, too
Similarly (though a few thousand years earlier) St Paul, in his letter to the church in Rome, writes "Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made."
2.8.08
How He Did It
Astronomer Guy Consolmagno was recently interviewed as part of ABC's Encounter programme. He was asked about 'religion and science' and made the following remark...
The episode covered a number of areas, and also interviewed 2008 Templeton Prize winner Michal Heller. Meanwhile, Guy Consolmagno was also asked about being a religious person embedded in the scientific world...
One of my quick answers is that the Bible tells me that God made the universe but it is my science that tells me how he did it!
The episode covered a number of areas, and also interviewed 2008 Templeton Prize winner Michal Heller. Meanwhile, Guy Consolmagno was also asked about being a religious person embedded in the scientific world...
There absolutely is this commonality and you forget sometimes but modern science really is fundamentally based on religious ideas. It's based on the idea that the universe does make sense, that there are laws to be found. You know, a lot of religions thought that things happened arbitrarily, because you know the god of thunder made the thunder fall, the god of crops made the crops grow. And Christianity says no there is only one God and he made the universe in an orderly way and he gave us the intelligence to be able to figure it out. But even more than that: our religion believes that, you know as the Bible puts it, God so loved the world that he sent his Son, it was primarily out of love of this creation that he found was good. So to love creation and to become more intimate with it by studying it as a scientist is a religious act, it is an act of worship. It is why I get up in the morning.
7.7.08
Climate Change and God
Believe or not, there are still a few people out there who think that climate change and global warming are just a natural occurences - that 27 billion tonnes of annual greenhouse emissions have no effect on the atmosphere.
As ludicrous as that sounds, it got me thinking as to why someone might be so attached to denial. My best guess is that it's because there are consequences in admitting there is global warming and climate change. Consequences such as admitting our past actions have harmed our environment; and changing the way society operates (in order to avoid future damage). Possibly the most difficult consequence is that of thinking beyond mere self-interest and considering the effects of our actions on others.
In thinking about this, I realised the parallel to the situation with Jesus and becoming a Christian. It involves owning up to being less than perfect (and being forgiven). It involves making an effort to be better in the future (with God's help). Also, it often involves being less self-obsessed and materialistic than might otherwise be the case.
For some, this is too much to confront. For some, it seems easier to construct a barrier of tenuous logic and rationalisation, rather than face the possibility of an inconvenient truth.
As ludicrous as that sounds, it got me thinking as to why someone might be so attached to denial. My best guess is that it's because there are consequences in admitting there is global warming and climate change. Consequences such as admitting our past actions have harmed our environment; and changing the way society operates (in order to avoid future damage). Possibly the most difficult consequence is that of thinking beyond mere self-interest and considering the effects of our actions on others.
In thinking about this, I realised the parallel to the situation with Jesus and becoming a Christian. It involves owning up to being less than perfect (and being forgiven). It involves making an effort to be better in the future (with God's help). Also, it often involves being less self-obsessed and materialistic than might otherwise be the case.
For some, this is too much to confront. For some, it seems easier to construct a barrier of tenuous logic and rationalisation, rather than face the possibility of an inconvenient truth.
13.2.08
New-age Self-centred
Brisbane PhD student Rosemary Aird examined a possible link between new forms of spirituality and mental health. She found that spirituality and self-focused religions may undermine a person's mental health.
"I had a look at two different beliefs - one was a belief in God, associated with traditional religions, and the other was the newer belief in a spiritual or higher power other than God," Dr Aird said.
Non-traditional belief was linked with higher rates of anxiety, depression, disturbed and suspicious ways of thinking and anti-social behaviour. Young people with new-age beliefs were twice as likely to be more anxious and depressed than those with traditional beliefs, the research found.
"Traditional religion tends to promote the idea of social responsibility and thinking of others' interests, whereas the new-age movement pushes the idea that we can transform the world by changing ourselves."
"I had a look at two different beliefs - one was a belief in God, associated with traditional religions, and the other was the newer belief in a spiritual or higher power other than God," Dr Aird said.
Non-traditional belief was linked with higher rates of anxiety, depression, disturbed and suspicious ways of thinking and anti-social behaviour. Young people with new-age beliefs were twice as likely to be more anxious and depressed than those with traditional beliefs, the research found.
"Traditional religion tends to promote the idea of social responsibility and thinking of others' interests, whereas the new-age movement pushes the idea that we can transform the world by changing ourselves."
9.2.08
Magnifying God
From time to time you may hear the expression "to magnify God". Sometimes from preachers - sometimes in Christian songs. It's a phrase that can get on my nerves. I might be getting a bit semantic, but it seems to me that God is quite huge enough already - without magnification. I imagine someone trying to get planet earth in under a microscope.
However, recently i heard a different take on it. Sure, a microscope magnifies things, but so does a telescope. But in the case of the telescope, it's not so much making small things look big, it's more a case of making far away things resemble something closer to their actual size. After all, even planet earth looks small when viewed from other planets.
This analysis makes a lot of sense to me. Sometimes (unintentionally) God gets squished into the background of life. But just like the moon (which is actually sooo much bigger than our thumb) God is also much greater than we often perceive. I guess it just depends on our perspective.
However, recently i heard a different take on it. Sure, a microscope magnifies things, but so does a telescope. But in the case of the telescope, it's not so much making small things look big, it's more a case of making far away things resemble something closer to their actual size. After all, even planet earth looks small when viewed from other planets.
This analysis makes a lot of sense to me. Sometimes (unintentionally) God gets squished into the background of life. But just like the moon (which is actually sooo much bigger than our thumb) God is also much greater than we often perceive. I guess it just depends on our perspective.
28.12.07
Washed Away
In the Bible, and in Christian tradition, the acceptance of God is often marked by the act of baptism. Amongst other things, it is meant to symbolise a fresh start.
I recently read a study which examined the link between washing and morality. The conclusion was that the two are very much intertwined in the human brain. Participants who were asked to think of previous unethical behaviour were significantly more likely to desire physical cleansing.
So i guess it's of little surprise that when we (the human race) devised an act to signify the removal of sin, and the starting of a new chapter of life, that water is involved.
I recently read a study which examined the link between washing and morality. The conclusion was that the two are very much intertwined in the human brain. Participants who were asked to think of previous unethical behaviour were significantly more likely to desire physical cleansing.
So i guess it's of little surprise that when we (the human race) devised an act to signify the removal of sin, and the starting of a new chapter of life, that water is involved.
5.4.06
Healthy Religion
An article appeared in Seed Magazine, discussing the link between spirituality and health.
A Handbook on Religion and Health has been published, reviewing the 1200 studies on the subject. According to co-author Koenig "When you measure religious beliefs, you find that they're related to better mental health, better coping and greater life satisfaction."
Lynda Powell, whose study observed a 25% reduction in risk of mortality in religious service attendees, admitted "We understand that there's an effect but we don't understand why the effect exists." Conducting further research on the daily practices of people of various religous backgrounds, she now suggests that "becoming mature spiritually is akin to being very effective at coping with stress".
Meanwhile, medical schools train doctors to take a detailed spiritual history without imposing their own beliefs on patients, said Koenig. "Doctors are coming out a lot more well-rounded and able to address these issues, and can realize the power that religious faith can have in terms of healing and sometimes in terms of disease, also." Physicians shouldn't proselytize to patients, but connect them with a spiritual care expert if they have any spiritual needs, he added.
A Handbook on Religion and Health has been published, reviewing the 1200 studies on the subject. According to co-author Koenig "When you measure religious beliefs, you find that they're related to better mental health, better coping and greater life satisfaction."
Lynda Powell, whose study observed a 25% reduction in risk of mortality in religious service attendees, admitted "We understand that there's an effect but we don't understand why the effect exists." Conducting further research on the daily practices of people of various religous backgrounds, she now suggests that "becoming mature spiritually is akin to being very effective at coping with stress".
Meanwhile, medical schools train doctors to take a detailed spiritual history without imposing their own beliefs on patients, said Koenig. "Doctors are coming out a lot more well-rounded and able to address these issues, and can realize the power that religious faith can have in terms of healing and sometimes in terms of disease, also." Physicians shouldn't proselytize to patients, but connect them with a spiritual care expert if they have any spiritual needs, he added.
29.3.06
Against the Odds
My interest was piqued by an article titled God by the Numbers where Charles White discusses some fairly large numbers and some fairly abstract ones.
He discusses the probability of the universe occuring through pure chance; 1 in 1010123 according to Beckenstein and Hawking.
In biology, he alludes to the Dembksi hypothesis, which suggests that for a one-celled organism to have enough time to evolve into a human being (at least one trillion cells) the universe would have to be 10162 times older than it is.
Then, in theoretical maths he explores the connection between e, pi and i - which is purely baffling. The serendipity of it caused one mathematics professor (an atheist) to write on the blackboard "There is no God, but if there were, this formula would be proof of his existence."
I'm not so sure that numbers or formulas can prove that, but these discoveries do tend to suggest that there is something else going on, that we don't yet fully understand.
To quote the subtitle from the article "Coincidence and random mutation are not the most likely explanations for some things."
He discusses the probability of the universe occuring through pure chance; 1 in 1010123 according to Beckenstein and Hawking.
In biology, he alludes to the Dembksi hypothesis, which suggests that for a one-celled organism to have enough time to evolve into a human being (at least one trillion cells) the universe would have to be 10162 times older than it is.
Then, in theoretical maths he explores the connection between e, pi and i - which is purely baffling. The serendipity of it caused one mathematics professor (an atheist) to write on the blackboard "There is no God, but if there were, this formula would be proof of his existence."
I'm not so sure that numbers or formulas can prove that, but these discoveries do tend to suggest that there is something else going on, that we don't yet fully understand.
To quote the subtitle from the article "Coincidence and random mutation are not the most likely explanations for some things."
14.2.06
No threat
I was unusually impressed with an article i read today about the Pope. In acknowledging the rapid progress of science he noted that
"science and religion are not opposed to each other and Christians should not be afraid to try to understand how they compliment each other in explaining the mystery of life on Earth."The pope hopes that science can help people see "the logic of faith in God" and remarked that the church should not science because God is "the Lord of all creation and all history".
24.1.06
When 1 plus 2 does not equal 3
When i started this blog i thought it best not to open the pandora's box of evolution, intelligent deign, creation etc. Google tells me there are already 227 million web pages that mention evolution, and i doubt that i have anything new to add. However, recently i attended a seminar by Ross McKenzie, in which he noted the following.
Distinctions about evolution:
1. Microevolution (Small changes occur over time within a species. Directly observable in the lab.)
2. Macroevolution (New species arise over long periods of time. Cannot be observed directly, but substantial indirect evidence.)
3. Philosophical Darwinism (Life arose as an accident and has no purpose.)
He points out that scientific validity of 1 or 2 does not imply that 3 is valid. Some scientists (who see human life as nothing more than replicating DNA) propose that there is a logical progression. Up-tight christians (that don't really understand science) say that because 3 is not true, therefore 1 and 2 can't be true. Hence the apparent conflict between "science" and "religion".
I think it's important that we remember that (as wonderful as science is) it is not philosophy. Science cannot explain the purpose or meaning of things, and definitely cannot tell us what is ethical, of value, or just. When Professor Peter Doherty (Nobel Prize winner) was interviewed last year, he said it continued to surprise him that there remained "a lot of confusion" about science and religion. In his words:
Distinctions about evolution:
1. Microevolution (Small changes occur over time within a species. Directly observable in the lab.)
2. Macroevolution (New species arise over long periods of time. Cannot be observed directly, but substantial indirect evidence.)
3. Philosophical Darwinism (Life arose as an accident and has no purpose.)
He points out that scientific validity of 1 or 2 does not imply that 3 is valid. Some scientists (who see human life as nothing more than replicating DNA) propose that there is a logical progression. Up-tight christians (that don't really understand science) say that because 3 is not true, therefore 1 and 2 can't be true. Hence the apparent conflict between "science" and "religion".
I think it's important that we remember that (as wonderful as science is) it is not philosophy. Science cannot explain the purpose or meaning of things, and definitely cannot tell us what is ethical, of value, or just. When Professor Peter Doherty (Nobel Prize winner) was interviewed last year, he said it continued to surprise him that there remained "a lot of confusion" about science and religion. In his words:
Scientists can be very arrogant, and religious people don't often get what science is. But being a committed Christian and being a scientist is not mutually exclusive.
10.8.05
Who is Blaise Pascal?
Does anyone remember Blaise Pascal?
He was the French mathematican/physicist who, despite many mathematical discoveries, is probably most remembered for his work involving the pressure exerted by liquids and gases. In fact, the unit of Pressure - the Pascal (Pa) - is named after this man.
Anyway i was reading the other day that Pascal was quoted as saying "There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus". I didn't think too much about it at the time.
Then, today i was reading an article on climate change. Interesting, the consequences of society's response (or lack thereof) to the issue of climate change was compared to our response to God - as described by Pascal. The analysis offered by Pascal was referred to as 'Pascal's wager' and was described in the article as follows:
"Believe in God though he does not exist, Pascal argued, and you lose nothing in the end. Fail to believe when he does in fact exist, and you lose everything."
------------------------------
PS. In researching the first quote, to make sure i remembered it correctly, i discovered a website of quotes which contains many other quotes of Pascal. The address for Pascal's quotes is http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/blaise_pascal/
He was the French mathematican/physicist who, despite many mathematical discoveries, is probably most remembered for his work involving the pressure exerted by liquids and gases. In fact, the unit of Pressure - the Pascal (Pa) - is named after this man.
Anyway i was reading the other day that Pascal was quoted as saying "There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus". I didn't think too much about it at the time.
Then, today i was reading an article on climate change. Interesting, the consequences of society's response (or lack thereof) to the issue of climate change was compared to our response to God - as described by Pascal. The analysis offered by Pascal was referred to as 'Pascal's wager' and was described in the article as follows:
"Believe in God though he does not exist, Pascal argued, and you lose nothing in the end. Fail to believe when he does in fact exist, and you lose everything."
------------------------------
PS. In researching the first quote, to make sure i remembered it correctly, i discovered a website of quotes which contains many other quotes of Pascal. The address for Pascal's quotes is http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/blaise_pascal/
21.7.05
Ressurection stats
I read today that a Professor Swinburne presented a series of calculations by which he proposes that there is a 97% chance that the resurrection of Jesus took place. Obviously, there are underlying assumptions involved in that calculation, but i found it interesting.
There is an article (and more info) at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/apologia-puts-faith-in-lap-of-the-odds/2005/07/18/1121538922281.html
There is an article (and more info) at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/apologia-puts-faith-in-lap-of-the-odds/2005/07/18/1121538922281.html
Purpose of this blog
A great deal is made of the alledged rift between the "religion" and "science". Aside from the number of scientists who are Christians, there are also quite a few incidents that occur from time to time, where science - far from being the enemy of God - actually pays homage to his existence, and encourages one to seek to discover more about the most mind-boggling of phenomena - a God that is so magnificent and wondrous - yet loves us (the tiny insignificant creatures that we are) in way that is immeasurable - both in magnitude and durability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)