Tuesday, August 18, 2015

BioLogos: Fundamentalists Were Wrong About Galileo, So They’re Also Wrong About Darwin

A Flawed History



It is one thing to point out particular conflicts between religion and science, it is quite another to characterize broadly the relationship between religion and science as one of conflict. The former is simply recognizing realities, the latter is the failed view known as the Conflict or Warfare Thesis. Certainly there are some genuine conflicts that arise from certain religious sects or traditions, but historically the relationship between religion and science is far more complicated than simply an on-going conflict. The BioLogos organization is very much concerned with this conflict, but they point out that they are careful to avoid the Warfare Thesis. Unfortunately this claim depends on a carefully crafted definition of the Warfare Thesis.

What is the Warfare Thesis?

The Warfare Thesis is bad history, but ironically too often the Warfare Thesis itself is the victim of bad history. Proponents of the Warfare Thesis are not necessarily atheists as they are sometimes portrayed. Nor do proponents of the Warfare Thesis necessarily see religion and science as mortal enemies, locked in an inevitable and necessary conflict. Like any broad movement the Warfare Thesis occupies a spectrum of views. From Voltaire and Edward Gibbon, to Hume, Kant, Washington Irving, Antoine-Jean Letronne, Thomas H. Huxley, John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and the many twentieth century proponents, the Warfare Thesis has had a wide variety of inputs and influences. Within its ranks one can find theists, agnostics and atheists. A common thread, however, is not the identification of conflict between religion and science so much as between fundamentalist religion and science. The problem lies with those scriptural literalists who can’t, or won’t, understand poetry or nuance in God’s word. Religion, once loosened from the fundamentalist grip, can take on its proper role. One of the Warfare Thesis strongest exponents, Andrew Dickson White, made this quite clear:

My belief is that in the field left to them—their proper field—the clergy will more and more, as they cease to struggle against scientific methods and conclusions, do work even nobler and more beautiful than anything they have heretofore done. And this is saying much. My conviction is that Science, though it has evidently conquered Dogmatic Theology based on biblical texts and ancient modes of thought, will go hand in hand with Religion; and that, although theological control will continue to diminish, Religion, as seen in the recognition of “a Power in the universe, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness,” and in the love of God and of our neighbor, will steadily grow stronger and stronger, not only in the American institutions of learning but in the world at large.

This religious sentiment was nowhere better illustrated than in the final scene of Inherit the Wind (click video above) which has the fictional character Henry Drummond (based on Clarence Darrow and played by actor Spencer Tracy) paying respects to his now deceased courtroom opponent, Matthew Harrison Brady (based on William Jennings Bryan and played by actor Fredric March).

Such sentimentalism does not sit well with atheist journalist E. K. Hornbeck (based on H. L. Mencken and played by actor Gene Kelly). Drummond quotes Scripture from memory and laments that “A giant once lived in that body, but Matt Brady got lost because he looked for God too high up and too far away.”

Hornbeck cries foul: “You hypocrite. You fraud. The atheist who believes in God,” but he is easily vanquished by the wiser Drummond who excoriates Hornbeck and his shallow skepticism. Hornbeck retreats from the courtroom while Drummond thoughtfully weighs his law book in one hand and the Bible in the other hand. He places the Good Book on top and victoriously walks out the other door to the rising crescendo of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Inherit the Wind is a classic staging of the Warfare Thesis. The ultimate target of Jerome Lawrence’s and Robert Lee’s script was McCarthyism and its witch hunts, but it was its weapon of choice—the Warfare Thesis—that made the play, and its many stagings and screenings, so popular.

And just as the Warfare Thesis is constructed from a false history, so too is Inherit the Wind based on a fictional retelling of the famous 1925 Monkey Trial. The historical furniture is rearranged to convey a false message of conflict, and yet the script is routinely held up as a cogent and accurate message for today. Such is the power of the enduring Warfare Thesis mythology.

So the Warfare Thesis is not an atheistic mission. Nor is it an attack on all things religious. Rather it is a religious view that seeks a harmonization which avoids the pitfalls of literalism and recognizes the advances of science. That may sound good, but in its attack on fundamentalism it fails to appreciate the complex relationship between religion and science. Religion, for example, can provide useful ideas to science and it can guiding restraints. The influence may or may not be cooperative, but it often is subtle and complicated.

What is BioLogos?

BioLogos is many things, but regarding the religion and science, BioLogos is concerned about conflicts. And not just any conflicts. President Deborah Haarsma recently reiterated BioLogos’ long-standing concern with Christians who do not accept the fact of evolution. Meanwhile Senior Editor Jim Stump expresses concern that design advocates are misleading people in areas such as climate change and vaccines.

These are all classic Warfare Thesis topics. They are politically, economically and metaphysically laden areas where the science is easily influenced by non scientific factors. Consider vaccines, for example, a topic that comes right out of Andrew Dickson White’s work. The facts are that vaccines provide varying levels of immunity at the very remote risk of injury. The details vary with the vaccine but, in general, patients are faced with a risk-reward tradeoff for which there is no scientific formula. Unfortunately the whole area has become politically charged and accurate statistics can be difficult to obtain. Even the mention of risk, which is a scientific fact, is too often met with disdain. It is the height of scientism—a spin-off of the Warfare Thesis—to argue that science dictates the answer. This is a human decision.

One of BioLogos’ arguments for its position is that it is following in the tradition of Copernicus and Galileo who advocated heliocentrism against scriptural opposition. Is it not obvious that Christians were right to alter their interpretation of biblical verses suggesting geocentrism, such as Psalm 104:5, Joshua 10:12-13 and Ecclesiastes 1:5.

The answer, of course, is “yes.” And for most such a modification was not difficult since it was doctrinally inconsequential. Indeed, most of Galileo’s opposition had little or no problem with such modifications and the scriptural questions were not high on his list of disputes he had to deal with.

Furthermore, when the perspective of those verses is understood (or as we say in science, the “reference frame”), there is no contradiction with heliocentrism. Galileo had plenty of political opposition, and he created much of it with his overbearing personality, but in his favor he had empirical evidences that were fairly suggestive of heliocentrism.

This is not analogous to today’s Warfare Thesis situation. The science does not at all suggest that the species arose spontaneously. We can argue over how unlikely this is, but BioLogos argues it is a fact. And as with all evolutionists, their confidence comes from the metaphysics, not the science. There are many proofs of evolution, but there is no scientific argument that supports the evolutionist’s claim that evolution is a fact. That is not my opinion, that is a fact of the literature.

Likewise, to compare the politically-charged man-made global warming theory with Galileo and heliocentrism is an insult to the great scientist and the theory he championed. Thoughtful commentators such as Matt Ridley have explained the non scientific influences on AGW, but the myth of certainty persists. This is not to say AGW is not true, perhaps it is. But we are far from knowing what its proponents proclaim as undeniable truth, and that is the point. The truth claims reveal that it isn’t about the science.

I tried to explain these issues at the BioLogos website. The website’s rule is the comments are closed after four days of inactivity. In this case, however, the evolutionists suddenly changed the rule and closed the discussion after a criticism of my points.

BioLogos is certainly on target to argue that scientific findings need to be acknowledged and recognized. And BioLogos obviously rejects the over-the-top atheistic versions of the Warfare Thesis. But that doesn’t change the fact that BioLogos’ support for non scientific mandates falls right into the Warfare Thesis tradition.

17 comments:

  1. It's a sad day when the post of a serious scientist, polemicist and pontifex between science and religion is treated like ... well...one of Joe Public's, one of my more contentious perorations; and by an organisation pretending to be a bridge joining them. End of grovel, Cornelius.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr.Hunter:
    So the Warfare Thesis is not an atheistic mission. Nor is it an attack on all things religious. Rather it is a religious view that seeks a harmonization which avoids the pitfalls of literalism and recognizes the advances of science.


    Obviously it is not exclusively a religious view by any common understanding of what constitutes religion.

    That may sound good, but in its attack on fundamentalism

    Some fundamentalism, you ,as usual ,paint with too broad a brush

    it fails to appreciate the complex and often cooperative and supportive relationship between religion and science.

    Often cooperative and supportive? You seem to be failing to appreciate that religious interpretation can be neither supportive or cooperative.

    Take you favorite, Scopes,a particular religion interpretation used the power of the government to declare what is acceptable science. A religious interpretation declared the Bible or at least parts of it to be a scientific text. This seems neither cooperative nor supportive of scientific method.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. V:

      I don't understand why "religious interpretation can be neither supportive or cooperative," but I agree with you that the relationship can be one of influence that is not necessarily cooperative or supportive. Change made.

      Delete
    2. White: "My conviction is that Science, though it has evidently conquered Dogmatic Theology based on biblical texts and ancient modes of thought, will go hand in hand with Religion; and that, although theological control will continue to diminish, Religion, as seen in the recognition of “a Power in the universe, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness,” and in the love of God and of our neighbor, will steadily grow stronger and stronger, not only in the American institutions of learning but in the world at large."

      J: Apparently, White was oblivious to how many understandings of what "love of neighbor" entails there are. There are many that derive from individuals' analogical inferences, inevitably biased (at first, at least) by their own individual sensibilities. This also explains why there are so many sects of the various religions. White's utopianism is about as non-inductively derived as the most a-rational religious beliefs.

      And how thoughtless must one be to continually deny that there is an obvious reason why humans continue to use language such as "four corners of the earth," "sun rise," "sun set," etc while holding to a spherical earth and a heliocentric solar system.

      Those at Biologos are dense as a rock.

      Delete
  3. Dr. Hunter,

    I suggest you get hold of the Great Course's course on science and religion by Lawrence Principe

    http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/science-and-religion.html

    There are two lectures on Galileo. The dispute with Galileo had nothing to do with either science or religion but politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks GVC, but it would be an oversimplification to say that the Galileo Affair had "nothing" to do with either science or religion but politics. There were a lot of moving parts, from the after effects of the Reformation and the thirty years war to Aristotelianism, Galileo's overbearing personality and, yes, science and religion. I would agree that theological resistance to heliocentrism based on Scripture was one of the least important factors. But that doesn't mean it was non existent and I think the BioLogos point that there have been changes in biblical interpretation due to scientific advances is a legitimate one.

      The problem lies in equating Copernicus / Galileo / Newton and heliocentrism with Darwin and evolution. The former is much closer to empirical science while the latter is an example of the complex relationship between religion and science with, in this case, religion dictating the answer to science. This underscores one of the main problems with the Warfare Thesis, namely, its failure to reckon with the nuances of that relationship.

      I understand that people believe the species arose spontaneously. But to identify those who are skeptics as examples of a religious conflict with scientific findings is simply illogical and another example of the Warfare Thesis.

      Delete
    2. I agree, I should have said little to do with science or religion. It had more to do with the 30 Year War and that it appeared that Galileo was taking sides in this dispute rather than with either science or religion.

      Delete
    3. Don't forget Aristotelianism. It was an enormous factor for many.

      Delete
  4. DrHunter:
    But to identify those who are skeptics as examples of a religious conflict with scientific findings is simply illogical and another example of the Warfare Thesis.


    I agree, there are skeptics who are not motivated by religious conflicts , then again there probably some who are. I guess it is best not to stereotype,don't you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  5. the war was declared against the creationist. the creationist never declared war against science. Just against wrong ideas from people in certain subjects touching on origin issues.
    Yes creationism is at war with anti creationist ideas done by people calling themselves scientists. YEC is more at war.
    It is not a war against smartness or science.
    Thats a absurd, unkind, unjust, dumbass(if sincere) accusation by the bad guys.
    Its just like saying if don't agree with us your dumb and bad.
    It is a reflection on them and not the accused.
    Let them say it.
    Biologos banned me for a innocent comment.
    I think it was when I said the modern world and so the Anglo American world was the result of a higher moral and intellectual mean in the populations of Great britain and North America. This from a puritan/Evangelical protestant motivation, under Gods blessing, which marginally prevailed over the other protestant nations and so on.
    They said that was evilness and BANNED me from polite society.
    They have agendas and back them up with thought/speech control.
    If they are evangelical Christians then they organize to attack their own people. They are ay war.
    Truth is not at war with science. its at war with lies and error.
    YEC has always and is here to rumble. So they should stop their whinning that we are attacking science.
    The philistines are upon you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The body count of this war is just horrifying...

      Delete
  6. It is important to remember that the Aristotelian view did not originate from the Bible. It was the accepted view of science back then and Christians found verses they could use to read this view into the Bible. In the end, the Bible got the blame and is viewed as a hindrance to science, but one lesson that can be learned here is to be careful how much to read the popular currently in vogue scientific views of the day into the Bible. In my mind, the Big Bang falls into this category.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AMEN and well said.
      It was the old Catholic church marrying these old greek thinkers. Just as done today by Christians who strongly insist genesis is wrong.
      The bible did get the blame but was blameless.
      The bible read right never fails on science concepts.

      Delete
    2. AMEN and well said.
      It was the old Catholic church marrying these old greek thinkers. Just as done today by Christians who strongly insist genesis is wrong.
      The bible did get the blame but was blameless.
      The bible read right never fails on science concepts.

      Delete
  7. "Is it not obvious that Christians were right to alter their interpretation of biblical verses suggesting geocentrism, such as Psalm 104:5, Joshua 10:12-13 and Ecclesiastes 1:5.

    "The answer, of course, is 'yes.'"

    Well, no, altering interpretations is not obviously right. It is rather obviously wrong, at least if you think God is author of:

    1) texts
    2) events in those texts
    3) Church interpreting those texts
    4) its predecessor in OT times, the "Jewish Church" (not same thing as Synagogue now rejecting Christ). It interepreted the texts before the Church did.

    "And for most such a modification was not difficult since it was doctrinally inconsequential."

    It is not.

    For one thing, it gives a precedent for reinterpretation.

    For another, when it comes to Joshua's long day, the fact that geocentric "perspective" is not just in narrator (Joshua 10:13) but also in miracle worker when he says the words that result in miracle (Joshua 10:12) gives a precedent for reinterpreting the exorcisms of Jesus Christ in ways less ideal for exorcists and more ideal for modern psychiatrists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Furthermore, when the perspective of those verses is understood (or as we say in science, the “reference frame”), there is no contradiction with heliocentrism."

    1) Confer what I said about Joshua's miracle producing words.
    2) With moon also standing still, there is. See St Robert's argument in first trial, in 1616, against a book, where Galileo was defending his work.

    "Galileo had plenty of political opposition, and he created much of it with his overbearing personality,"

    If you think this cliched his fate as silenced author and as ex-heretic in life long house arrest, you are pretty bleak in your views of 17th C. Catholic Church.

    "but in his favor he had empirical evidences that were fairly suggestive of heliocentrism."

    Or, as St Robert Bellarmine pointed out in first trial, of Tychonianism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Incredible post, you provide unique information in your blog. I have noticed many new facts for me. I will be waiting for other interesting posts from you.

    Money For Junk Cars | Junk cars | Junk Yard

    ReplyDelete