Maintaining integrity; my response to Neil deGrasse Tyson

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has weighed in on the science vs religion debate. In a recent interview he proclaimed that he doesn’t see faith and reason being reconciled. One website seemed to get very excited about it. Like many newspaper articles however, the headline doesn’t seem to match the rest of it.

As he explains his position, it becomes clear his difficulty is with a literalistic interpretation of scripture put forward by certain Christian groups; interpretations he openly acknowledges that are not held by everyone. If you take the Bible and try overlay modern scientific discoveries and terminology, then you are absolutely going to run into a lot of problems. This isn’t the fault of science or the Bible, but of the person using them in such a manner.  As Peter Enns puts it:

These are ancient stories that ask ancient questions and give ancient answers to those questions and it’s our obligation to find out what those are…..it’s a matter of expectations. The assumption that science and bible need to be in some meaningful conversation from my point of view that’s exactly the problem. When we begin there we’re creating problems for ourselves that we would otherwise wisely avoid.

When approaching the Bible, the question should be what is the Bible trying to say, what were the authors trying to convey? It’s not as simple as saying “oh it’s figurative, myth etc”, the Bible authors simply were not asking the questions we are. We should engage with it in the context of the ancient world.

The moment you say “the Bible says” you are no longer dealing in science; you’re talking theology and biblical scholarship, but it’s not about accepting science over the Bible, or believing one to be more “true” than the other, it’s about maintaining the integrity of both.

Following on from the point of maintaining integrity, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s main concern seems to be with what is being pushed as science and is trying to be smuggled into science classes. On this he will find support from many religious scientists, who have been on the receiving end of abuse from those who do not hold to the evolution paradigm. We need to distinguish between the claims of young earth creationists for example, and saying that God is responsible for the creation of the universe. Young earth creationists take Genesis as literal history and a scientific account and anything that disagrees with it is wrong, including the age of the earth, decay rates, etc. They start with presupposing what the findings should be and interpret from there. As Francis Collins puts it in his book The Language of God,

If these claims were actually true, it would lead to a complete and irreversible collapse of the sciences of physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology and biology

Simply saying that God is responsible for the creation of the universe is very different. This is not re-interpreting or ignoring the scientific data; and it’s not a conclusion that comes out of what we don’t know but out of what we do. What science finds regarding age of the universe, evolution of species etc, in no way threatens believing God is ultimately behind it all.  Much like when they found the Higgs Boson, the more science finds out the more I go ““wow, how amazing is God to design that?” The more I know about anything, the more I appreciate those with the skills to design or create it, but I’m not invoking that person as an explanation to cover over what I don’t know. If science hasn’t answered yet then so be it, I don’t feel the need to have to insert God to fill the gap, though I will consider the possibility that it’s a question that science can’t answer because it’s not designed to (which is another massive topic in itself). I don’t have to choose between God and science. So whilst I think the Bible and science are separate and possibly should be kept that way, they are not in conflict or incompatible and should be interpreted in light of the fields they belong to, i.e they should critique themselves as opposed to each other. Some standpoints are just as bad theologically as they are scientifically.

Neil deGrasse Tyson does touch on a massively important point regarding the basis of faith, which I think sums up everything so far:

“….if that’s where you’re going to put your God in this world, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance…….If you’re going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, God has to mean more to you than just where science has yet to tread”

He is absolutely right, and this is a position too many Christians find themselves in even though it’s not a faith advocated by Jesus and the Bible. This kind of faith is blind faith and absolutely is incompatible with reason by its definition; but it’s not a faith that is universally applicable. As I have argued elsewhere (here, here and here), the Christian faith has evidence to support it and is based on evidence. As Paul Davies has argued, faith plays a part in science

“Even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as a lawlike order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is obviously a very passionate scientist, committed to seeing science carried out correctly. So are many scientists who are religious, who share similar concerns that he expressed. Whilst I disagree with his overall conclusion, he has raised and brought to light some issues that are very well worth exploring and need addressing; and many Christians are already doing so, with this being my partial attempt. For the conversation to be worthwhile, the integrity of the relevant fields should be maintained and discussed on their own terms. Then we can start having a discussion.

Experience versus the Bible

Shane Raynor asked on Twitter “What order would you put these in— 1 being the highest priority and 4 the lowest? Scripture, experience, reason, and tradition” I would put them in the order of  1. Experience 2. Reason 3. Scripture 4. Tradition. Our experiences, good and bad, make us who we are, influence every aspect of us including how we view others. They can also protect us and get us through tough situations. As C.S. Lewis puts it; Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.  Some would put Scripture above all else and use scripture in response to situations. What do you do though when scripture doesn’t reflect the realities of said situation; when experiences seem to go against the Bible.

During a discussion on Huffington Post Live, theologian Darrell Brock talked about being gay being a choice and being in rebellion against God because that’s what the Bible teaches. The passage that alludes to that is:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:24-27

This passage is one of the so-called “clobber” passages; verses that are used to demonstrate that homosexuality is a sin (they got their name because of the way they are used).  Whilst scientists are still debating what determines someones sexuality, Paul is suggesting here that it is punishment for disobeying God, for worshiping idols and that God has given them over to their lusts. As I type this, the Gay Christian Network is holding their conference in Chicago. Many LGBT Christians are coming together for fellowship, to praise, to worship and learn about God. These are not the actions of people who God has given over to their lusts. Listening to their testimonies and chatting to them, their love for him is very much in evidence; they aren’t people who are in rebellion against God. My experience just doesn’t warrant such a conclusion.

My experience seems to against the Bible.

Thing is, I don’t see the passage as addressing homosexuality. In the verses preceding it, Paul is talking about people who have turned from God and started worshiping other idols. Some commentaries say he is referencing pagan worship and in the verses after this, Paul drops a bomb by saying that who he is writing to are also like that. So my experience isn’t so much against the Bible but with certain  interpretations of it. Another example is the concept of original sin, to which we come to Paul again. Paul says that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory God” and that sin entered through the actions of Adam and Eve. Putting these 2 together, many Christians claim that humans are utterly depraved and incapable of acts of “good”.  Whilst humanity has been responsible for some horrendous atrocities, it has also been responsible for incredible acts of kindness and grace that sometimes defy explanation.

Once again my experience seems to go against the Bible.

Looking back at the Genesis text though, no where does it say anywhere that the guilt and inability to choose good, is imprinted into all humanity as a result of what Adam did. The very next set of verses is about Cain which includes this:

“If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”  Genesis 4:7

God doesn’t say “because of what your father did you will now only choose sin and there’s nothing you can do about it, and this applies to the whole of humanity for all time”. He said Cain had a choice, he could either choose to follow God or not which is the same choice his mother and father had. People are good, they just make bad choices sometimes (or a lot of the time).

Those who say that scripture should come first, would say that I’m allowing outside influences to govern how I read the Bible; that I should let the Bible govern how I read it. I get what they’re saying and I agree to a point, but you can’t even read the Bible without outside influences. The Bible doesn’t teach you what grass is, what mountains are, it doesn’t teach you how to even read.  Experience can work against you though. Throughout history, outside influences have caused changes in interpretation. The prevailing view was that the earth stood still, our experience is that everything else moved. We then discovered that we’re the ones moving, but we still talk about the sun rising even though it only appears to be rising. This outside information though, changed how we interpret certain passages. Culture has also driven how we interpret passages. Slavery was seen as normal and acceptable and many Christians in the day pointed to scripture to support their view. Now, very few Christians interpret those passages the same way and seem to go through some mental and interpretive gymnastics to show why.

There are many many examples that could be used, but ultimately experience and reason have to become before scripture. To put it the other way round would be to ignore everything that makes us human, and that doesn’t end well.

God, Morgan Freeman and please don’t make me build an ark

Last week I got watching Evan Almighty. Not my usual type of movie but Sarah wanted to watch it so what’s a good fiance to do? Somewhat surprisingly it started raising questions in my mind about following God, knowing its God that’s commanding you and how do you explain it to others?

In the movie, Evan is called by God to build an ark for an impending flood. He gets some pretty blatant signs what he is to do with everything pointing him to Genesis 6:14 then God himself appearing before him (and if God looks like Morgan Freeman, that would be very cool) Naturally Evan is asking how he can be sure it is God. Inevitably he gets signs from birds following him to him losing all his clothes except the robe God gives him; the unshavable beard seemed to clinch it though. It’s all well and good in the movies but in the real world it doesn’t work that way. I’ve spent my week off just putting everything to one side and just spending time with Sarah and whilst I think I have a handle on where God is leading me, he has a habit of sending me off in other directions, or I have a habit of going off in other directions. Which it is, is actually part of the problem; thinking I’m following God when I’m not and vice versa.  My current job is in digital forensics and I’m currently taking an exam (well, waiting for the results of it*) and I’m pretty sure God has something planned for me in this field, but I can’t be sure. I ask him, but Morgan Freeman doesn’t come, it just feels like that’s where I’m heading. I’m not sure I have a definite task yet though, I have this site and causes that I try to publicize but I feel I want to do more. Maybe it’s all linked.

How do you explain it to others though? Not even Evan’s family, who talked about praying at the beginning, believed him to start with. The town thought he was just plain nuts, to be fair if someone started building an ark because they thought a flood was coming, I’d think they were nuts. Or if they’re going to build a giant cross within which to bury people in [1]. If Christians are going to be skeptical, how do you explain it to someone who doesn’t even believe God exists? If they’re your friend, they’ll probably accept that you think God is calling you because you believe it. If they’re not your friend, be ready for ridicule, but the Bible is full of stories such as this and Jesus never said you’d have an easy ride. The other aspect though is what you think God is calling you do. Many atrocities have, and continue to be “justified” by saying “God called me to do it!” If I say “God is calling me to fight slavery” then many people will probably be with you and accept it. If you say “God is calling me to kill these people”, that would be questioned and rightly so. These atrocities do mean that when people say God is calling them, it makes people nervous. Trying to explain that you’re doing something because God is calling you will raise eyebrows regardless. Sarah and I postponed our wedding by 2 years because we believe God is calling her to be a youth worker and train in Birmingham, approx 80 miles from where I live. Explaining this to my parents was interesting.

The phrase “you have to follow your heart” is an easy one when people agree with where your heart is going. Same for following God. It’s easy to do when people agree with where he’s leading you. Filtering out all the influences and trying to get to what God has planned and what you’re supposed to do with it seems to be the hardest part of being a Christian. Faith affects every part of your life, it’s going to drive decisions and it’s going to get people curious. I just do the best I can and pray God does the rest.

I just hope he doesn’t get me building arks.

 

References:

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/great-cross-alliance-tomb_n_3769255.html

 

*Since writing this, I have passed both sections of the exam

First published 18th August 2013