This thought was broadcast at 5:25 this morning but also at 6:50 yesterday as they cancelled my second slot on Friday due to the D-day memorials. I decided to move this thought forward to Thursday for the 6:50 slot as I think it was the most important one of the week.
Day 4: Using our tools – science and faith
This year sees a number of celebrations marking Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his greatest work On the Origin of Species through natural selection. From a Christian perspective, many of the Darwin media reports and programs contain a worryingly anti-faith message as they contrast supposed rational science with the irrational faith of believers. But, we must remember that in Darwin’s time the majority of scientist’s were Christians, and it was these scientists who recognized and accepted Darwin’s important ideas. Similarly today the majority of Christian’s who are professional scientists see no conflict between the theory of evolution and their faith. So why do so many people think that science and faith are in conflict?
Unfortunately, as in many areas, it is the extremists who tend to make the headlines. Both atheists and religious fundamentalists are so excitable and vocal that it is easy to get the impression that science and faith are an either, or thing. This damages the reputation of both science and faith. Many people intuitively realize that life encompasses important elements of both, so are unsure of what to make of the supposed experts who say that the scientific and the spiritual cannot be held at one time. Quite often the response is to simply not think about the issue.
But not thinking about this issue impoverishes our view of the world as it throws away the two most important tools we have for understanding our lives. Yes of course it is easier not to think about the problem, and just immerse ourselves in our own busyness, but sooner or later we will find ourselves needing to deal with deeper issues or problems. To do this we need to learn how to use the tool of science and the tool of faith. We need to learn how to be comfortable being spiritual people in a scientific world.
Friday, 5 June 2009
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #3
Here is the 5:25am version - I quite liked Tiggy Walkers slip of the tongue at the end!
Day 3: Science and Faith
The American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, wrote a famous paper entitled “what is it like to be a bat?” Bats are intriguing creatures because many species use echo-location in the same way as we use sight. Instead of detecting light bouncing off objects, these bats emit high-pitch clicks and then listen for the echos in order to form an idea of their surroundings. Interestingly they use the same part of their brain for echo-location as we do for sight. They literally “see” with sound.
Nagels question was whether we could understand what it would be like to see with sound. His answer was no. Even if the brain activity involved with echo location and visual sight is identical, we have only experienced, and thus can only “know” what it is like to see using light. It may be possible to define or “objectify” all the elements of sensing our surroundings, however at the end of the day a description of how the system works is not going to replace the experience of either seeing, or indeed echo location. There is thus an important distinction between the description of an event, and the experience of that same event.
Science is certainly an important tool that many of us owe our lives to, however we must be careful not to mistake the success of science in one area as an indication that science provides answers in all areas. Science is the description of life, but spirituality, often expressed in religious terms, is the experience of life. In many ways spirituality is our relationship with the world around us. How interesting then that Christianity is based not upon scientific knowledge, but upon a relationship with God. Such a relationship can never be contradicted by science, because as Nagel has shown with his bat analogy, science can never explain “what it’s like” to truly know God.
Day 3: Science and Faith
The American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, wrote a famous paper entitled “what is it like to be a bat?” Bats are intriguing creatures because many species use echo-location in the same way as we use sight. Instead of detecting light bouncing off objects, these bats emit high-pitch clicks and then listen for the echos in order to form an idea of their surroundings. Interestingly they use the same part of their brain for echo-location as we do for sight. They literally “see” with sound.
Nagels question was whether we could understand what it would be like to see with sound. His answer was no. Even if the brain activity involved with echo location and visual sight is identical, we have only experienced, and thus can only “know” what it is like to see using light. It may be possible to define or “objectify” all the elements of sensing our surroundings, however at the end of the day a description of how the system works is not going to replace the experience of either seeing, or indeed echo location. There is thus an important distinction between the description of an event, and the experience of that same event.
Science is certainly an important tool that many of us owe our lives to, however we must be careful not to mistake the success of science in one area as an indication that science provides answers in all areas. Science is the description of life, but spirituality, often expressed in religious terms, is the experience of life. In many ways spirituality is our relationship with the world around us. How interesting then that Christianity is based not upon scientific knowledge, but upon a relationship with God. Such a relationship can never be contradicted by science, because as Nagel has shown with his bat analogy, science can never explain “what it’s like” to truly know God.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #2
A bit less banter today. Click here to listen.
Day 2: Nothing buttery
“They know what you are thinking” read a title in the Sunday Times the other week, reporting on how neuroscientists are able to use various types of scanning equipment to apparently “read our thoughts”. Such stories are still more science fiction than practical technology, brain scanning is not quite as advanced as some in the popular media make out, however new techniques are giving us exciting insights into how our brains work and what is happening on a physical level as we think. Such advances hold a great potential in understanding and treating some of the terrible neuro-degenerative disorders that inflict so many as they age.
But we need to be careful to understand what such technology is actually telling us. There was great excitement a couple of years ago about the discovery of the “God spot”; an area in the brain that showed more electrical activity when people had spiritual experiences. There were even some attempts to try and see if people with religious beliefs had bigger or more developed “God-spots” than atheists or agnostics.
Although such research is certainly interesting, being able to provide a physical or scientific explanation for an experience should not be seen as explaining experiences away. Some philosophers refer to such arguments as “nothing buttery” arguments: Our thoughts are “nothing but” electrical impulses in the brain. The spiritual is “nothing but” brain activity. Love is “nothing but” excitable neurones.
However, knowing about the mechanics of our brain is very different from being a thinking, feeling person. Nothing buttery may work well in text books, but it helps us very little in the real world. Thoughts and experiences may be accompanied by certain brain activity, but what we actually experience is far more than “nothing but” excited brain cells.
Day 2: Nothing buttery
“They know what you are thinking” read a title in the Sunday Times the other week, reporting on how neuroscientists are able to use various types of scanning equipment to apparently “read our thoughts”. Such stories are still more science fiction than practical technology, brain scanning is not quite as advanced as some in the popular media make out, however new techniques are giving us exciting insights into how our brains work and what is happening on a physical level as we think. Such advances hold a great potential in understanding and treating some of the terrible neuro-degenerative disorders that inflict so many as they age.
But we need to be careful to understand what such technology is actually telling us. There was great excitement a couple of years ago about the discovery of the “God spot”; an area in the brain that showed more electrical activity when people had spiritual experiences. There were even some attempts to try and see if people with religious beliefs had bigger or more developed “God-spots” than atheists or agnostics.
Although such research is certainly interesting, being able to provide a physical or scientific explanation for an experience should not be seen as explaining experiences away. Some philosophers refer to such arguments as “nothing buttery” arguments: Our thoughts are “nothing but” electrical impulses in the brain. The spiritual is “nothing but” brain activity. Love is “nothing but” excitable neurones.
However, knowing about the mechanics of our brain is very different from being a thinking, feeling person. Nothing buttery may work well in text books, but it helps us very little in the real world. Thoughts and experiences may be accompanied by certain brain activity, but what we actually experience is far more than “nothing but” excited brain cells.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #1
Dave Adcock, the BBC radio solent "thought for the day" producer asked me to give four thoughts between June 2nd and June 5th 2009 live on local radio. You can listen to number 1 here and the text is below:
Day 1: both… and
Good morning,
Earlier this year my three week old son was rushed into Southampton general hospital with a serious undiagnosed heart condition. Thanks to the skill and dedication of the staff in the paediatric intensive care and cardiac units his life was saved and he has made a full recovery with no anticipated future problems.
All parents find such an experience highly traumatic, and my wife and I were no exception. However, as a medical scientist, someone who is used to using sophisticated technology to explore the workings of the human body, a part of me found the whole experience extremely interesting. I was able to watch the stats on the monitors as various drugs took affect and his body responded in a complex, yet predictable way, to the expert medical treatment.
But this was no experiment; this was my son. Although the scientific part of me could view the situation fairly dispassionately, the human side of me was crying out for him to just get better. Although I could understand much of what was going on, and see the reason for the various treatments and their effects, having all the knowledge in the world was not going to change how I experienced the situation.
Understanding science and technology is certainly important to our lives, and central to human wellbeing, but viewing life through this dispassionate lens is not all there is. Truth is as much about human experience as it is knowing the facts. Scientific knowledge will enrich our lives but only up to a certain point. It is a tool, not an end in itself - life is far more than just atoms and molecules.
Day 1: both… and
Good morning,
Earlier this year my three week old son was rushed into Southampton general hospital with a serious undiagnosed heart condition. Thanks to the skill and dedication of the staff in the paediatric intensive care and cardiac units his life was saved and he has made a full recovery with no anticipated future problems.
All parents find such an experience highly traumatic, and my wife and I were no exception. However, as a medical scientist, someone who is used to using sophisticated technology to explore the workings of the human body, a part of me found the whole experience extremely interesting. I was able to watch the stats on the monitors as various drugs took affect and his body responded in a complex, yet predictable way, to the expert medical treatment.
But this was no experiment; this was my son. Although the scientific part of me could view the situation fairly dispassionately, the human side of me was crying out for him to just get better. Although I could understand much of what was going on, and see the reason for the various treatments and their effects, having all the knowledge in the world was not going to change how I experienced the situation.
Understanding science and technology is certainly important to our lives, and central to human wellbeing, but viewing life through this dispassionate lens is not all there is. Truth is as much about human experience as it is knowing the facts. Scientific knowledge will enrich our lives but only up to a certain point. It is a tool, not an end in itself - life is far more than just atoms and molecules.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
How to invest in my Child Trust Fund
1. Shares should give a better return over 18 years.
2. Large providers are less likely to go bust.
3. My wife doesn't trust my investing abilities so a stakeholder CTF is the way to go.
4. If my wife doesn't trust me, I don't trust individual fund managers, so a index tracker is the best shares option.
5. We want to save the planet so tracking an ethical index seems like the best idea, although these don't seem to perform as well as some of the other indexes.
6. Family Investments just moved their ethical CTF from an actively managed fund to one that tracks the FTSE4good index (good idea considering the huge loss this fund has made over the last couple years!). Although other providers (e.g, CIS/Children's Mutual) provide a similar option, the size of Family Investments reassures me.
7. All the stakeholder funds seem to charge the maximum 1.5% and also seem to allow transfers out so this doesn't seem to be a worry.
8. If any well informed investor stumbles across my blog and can advise me why my reasoning is bad please tell me so that I can transfer to a better option!!
2. Large providers are less likely to go bust.
3. My wife doesn't trust my investing abilities so a stakeholder CTF is the way to go.
4. If my wife doesn't trust me, I don't trust individual fund managers, so a index tracker is the best shares option.
5. We want to save the planet so tracking an ethical index seems like the best idea, although these don't seem to perform as well as some of the other indexes.
6. Family Investments just moved their ethical CTF from an actively managed fund to one that tracks the FTSE4good index (good idea considering the huge loss this fund has made over the last couple years!). Although other providers (e.g, CIS/Children's Mutual) provide a similar option, the size of Family Investments reassures me.
7. All the stakeholder funds seem to charge the maximum 1.5% and also seem to allow transfers out so this doesn't seem to be a worry.
8. If any well informed investor stumbles across my blog and can advise me why my reasoning is bad please tell me so that I can transfer to a better option!!
Friday, 26 September 2008
Moral Maze 24th Sep 08
Gosh it's all go on the science and faith front at the moment!
On Wednesday night the moral maze featured the topic "why are we so scared of religion?" possibly as a response to the Michael Reiss incident at the Royal Society.
By far the best witness was Steve Chalke who gave Michael Portillo and Kenan Malik a real beating. Protillo tried to trap Chalke by asking him if his real motivation (behind his ministry) was to convert people to Christianity, but was totally unprepared for his answer. Chalke argued that his motivation is to follow Jesus which means loving God and loving people. What people then do with that is their own business BUT Chalke made the point that you never change people's minds by twisting their arms (echo's of John Locke). Thus Chalke delivered the essence of the Christian gospel in a highly effective way - evangelism is a result of the Christian lifestyle, not an aim in itself. The way for Christians to transform the world is through love, not proselytization.
Next Malik tried to trap Chalke by asking why religion has a special status in being able to run state schools. Chalke accused him of talking nonsense by pointing out that the government academy scheme is open to anyone who wants to put up a couple million of their own money. Malik tried to argue that there was no such thing as secular schools, a point which Chalke laughed off as being totally fictitious seeing that the program started with a statement that there are 7000 faith schools; in which case all the others must, by definition, be secular.
All in all Chalke gave a brilliant defense of the Christian position against two opponents who were not really up to the challenge.
On Wednesday night the moral maze featured the topic "why are we so scared of religion?" possibly as a response to the Michael Reiss incident at the Royal Society.
By far the best witness was Steve Chalke who gave Michael Portillo and Kenan Malik a real beating. Protillo tried to trap Chalke by asking him if his real motivation (behind his ministry) was to convert people to Christianity, but was totally unprepared for his answer. Chalke argued that his motivation is to follow Jesus which means loving God and loving people. What people then do with that is their own business BUT Chalke made the point that you never change people's minds by twisting their arms (echo's of John Locke). Thus Chalke delivered the essence of the Christian gospel in a highly effective way - evangelism is a result of the Christian lifestyle, not an aim in itself. The way for Christians to transform the world is through love, not proselytization.
Next Malik tried to trap Chalke by asking why religion has a special status in being able to run state schools. Chalke accused him of talking nonsense by pointing out that the government academy scheme is open to anyone who wants to put up a couple million of their own money. Malik tried to argue that there was no such thing as secular schools, a point which Chalke laughed off as being totally fictitious seeing that the program started with a statement that there are 7000 faith schools; in which case all the others must, by definition, be secular.
All in all Chalke gave a brilliant defense of the Christian position against two opponents who were not really up to the challenge.
Thursday, 25 September 2008
John MacKay - talk 24th Sep '08
Here's a run down of MacKay's talk that I attended the other night. I originally posted this on the CiS website but note it was later copied and discussed on the BCSE discussion forum.
The title was "Creation, the final proof" although he claimed this was given to him and he hadn't spoken on this topic for a while.
He started off asking how we could know something was "created" however defined creation as only "ex nihilo". He then got a bit of mileage talking about the futility and waste of money of the large hadron collider (he denies the big bang) followed by his first (of many) claims that evolution is entirely incompatible with Christianity which relies on God creating out of nothing (and he used the example of Jesus turning water into wine). He asked how the universe of such complexity could possibly be created out of an explosion, and even commented on how ridiculous it was that hydrogen could be made into other elements! (Gee wiz look how complicated this all is, it couldn't possibly of just happened!)
He next moved into a section on the history of science quoting Lyell (amongst others) for wanting to remove "Moses from Science". He spent a bit of time criticising uniformitarianism and claimed there to be an atheist conspiracy amongst scientists.
Next he produced a boomerang and talked about the information content that was needed to turn a piece of wood into a boomerang. This served as an introduction to about half an hour on DNA and information theory, claiming that you could identify design when the information present in an object is greater than the information in its parts (and he produced the formula IP>ip = creation). He was actually relatively good at explaining simply how DNA works (even if he did keep on using a picture of a left-handed helix) however time and again he commented on how complicated the system was and how it couldn't possibly have evolved (incredulity argument again).
He finished off with the points that no one had seen evolution, that the bible was the word of God in its literal form, that if you deny the creation story you deny Jesus as God, and that academics and theologians were conspiring against the truth - which he had been called to preach....
In the question time he claimed that Geologists are (and I quote) "really quite stupid" because they use circular reasoning to date rocks with fossils, and then he came up with the amazing claim that the monkey-tree fossils in Lulworth (Dorset) were trees planted by humans who brought them from the southern hemisphere! He then commented that geology professors believe in evolution because they think the genetics professor has proved it whist the genetics professor believes because he thinks the geology professor has proved it.
On carbon dating he thinks decay has varied over time and that extrapolating a long time based on current decay rates is begging the question. He also thinks the global flood messed up decay times.
Somewhere in there he also claimed that Adam had "perfect knowledge" and knew about aerodynamics and how to make metal-alloys however never bothered to try. Other claims were that thorns only appeared after the fall, Lions once ate grass and dinosaurs cohabited the garden with Adam.
Prehaps most concerning of all was his response to the question from someone from CiS (who wants to remain nameless) about whether you could hold to evolution and still be a Christian. He essentially said that anyone agreeing with evolution would have such a distorted picture of God that they would not be able to be in relationship with him, and that on the day of judgement God would ask them why they had said/taught that God was a liar.
The fun and games that happened afterwards I mentioned in my previous post, below.
I did however go up to him and ask him about Kent Hovind's prison sentence, the lawsuit between AiG and CMI, and his accusations against Ken Ham, commenting that you can know a teaching by its fruit and that the fruit of the six day creation lobby isn't exactly pure. He replied that people thought Jesus was a scoundrel and a liar and that whenever you speak the truth people try to smear you.
In conclusion MacKay is very slick but has little substance. His skill is to make the most ridiculous claim sound believable. Sadly this seems to be quite an effective tactic amongst people not accustomed to question, however no thinking person is likely to find him persuasive in the slightest. 6-day creationism is not a well thought-through position.
The title was "Creation, the final proof" although he claimed this was given to him and he hadn't spoken on this topic for a while.
He started off asking how we could know something was "created" however defined creation as only "ex nihilo". He then got a bit of mileage talking about the futility and waste of money of the large hadron collider (he denies the big bang) followed by his first (of many) claims that evolution is entirely incompatible with Christianity which relies on God creating out of nothing (and he used the example of Jesus turning water into wine). He asked how the universe of such complexity could possibly be created out of an explosion, and even commented on how ridiculous it was that hydrogen could be made into other elements! (Gee wiz look how complicated this all is, it couldn't possibly of just happened!)
He next moved into a section on the history of science quoting Lyell (amongst others) for wanting to remove "Moses from Science". He spent a bit of time criticising uniformitarianism and claimed there to be an atheist conspiracy amongst scientists.
Next he produced a boomerang and talked about the information content that was needed to turn a piece of wood into a boomerang. This served as an introduction to about half an hour on DNA and information theory, claiming that you could identify design when the information present in an object is greater than the information in its parts (and he produced the formula IP>ip = creation). He was actually relatively good at explaining simply how DNA works (even if he did keep on using a picture of a left-handed helix) however time and again he commented on how complicated the system was and how it couldn't possibly have evolved (incredulity argument again).
He finished off with the points that no one had seen evolution, that the bible was the word of God in its literal form, that if you deny the creation story you deny Jesus as God, and that academics and theologians were conspiring against the truth - which he had been called to preach....
In the question time he claimed that Geologists are (and I quote) "really quite stupid" because they use circular reasoning to date rocks with fossils, and then he came up with the amazing claim that the monkey-tree fossils in Lulworth (Dorset) were trees planted by humans who brought them from the southern hemisphere! He then commented that geology professors believe in evolution because they think the genetics professor has proved it whist the genetics professor believes because he thinks the geology professor has proved it.
On carbon dating he thinks decay has varied over time and that extrapolating a long time based on current decay rates is begging the question. He also thinks the global flood messed up decay times.
Somewhere in there he also claimed that Adam had "perfect knowledge" and knew about aerodynamics and how to make metal-alloys however never bothered to try. Other claims were that thorns only appeared after the fall, Lions once ate grass and dinosaurs cohabited the garden with Adam.
Prehaps most concerning of all was his response to the question from someone from CiS (who wants to remain nameless) about whether you could hold to evolution and still be a Christian. He essentially said that anyone agreeing with evolution would have such a distorted picture of God that they would not be able to be in relationship with him, and that on the day of judgement God would ask them why they had said/taught that God was a liar.
The fun and games that happened afterwards I mentioned in my previous post, below.
I did however go up to him and ask him about Kent Hovind's prison sentence, the lawsuit between AiG and CMI, and his accusations against Ken Ham, commenting that you can know a teaching by its fruit and that the fruit of the six day creation lobby isn't exactly pure. He replied that people thought Jesus was a scoundrel and a liar and that whenever you speak the truth people try to smear you.
In conclusion MacKay is very slick but has little substance. His skill is to make the most ridiculous claim sound believable. Sadly this seems to be quite an effective tactic amongst people not accustomed to question, however no thinking person is likely to find him persuasive in the slightest. 6-day creationism is not a well thought-through position.
"Evil"ution
Last night I went to a talk by the (in?)famous australian geologist (actually schoolteacher) John MacKay. I was preparing to be outraged however was actually rather amused by the whole thing. MacKay was a very slick presenter but didn't make any good arguments, basing most of his talk around the incredulity argument. The best bit was a conversation I had with a chap afterwards:
I had asked a question as to whether it was possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution (which MacKay essentially said no to). After the talk finished some guy came up to me and asked me why I thought evolution was called evolution. Before I could answer he said more slowly "evil"lution - there's evil even in the name". At this point I thought he was joking and said "no it's spelt e v O l u t i o n" to which he said I was deceived by satan. I asked him if it was my spelling or my beliefs that were deceived and he launched into a hand waving diatribe about intellectuals and then returned to his idea that there was "evil" even in the name (he wasn't joking!!). I then asked him how he knew that it was only I who was deceived and not him, to which he answered that he knew the truth!!
I had asked a question as to whether it was possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution (which MacKay essentially said no to). After the talk finished some guy came up to me and asked me why I thought evolution was called evolution. Before I could answer he said more slowly "evil"lution - there's evil even in the name". At this point I thought he was joking and said "no it's spelt e v O l u t i o n" to which he said I was deceived by satan. I asked him if it was my spelling or my beliefs that were deceived and he launched into a hand waving diatribe about intellectuals and then returned to his idea that there was "evil" even in the name (he wasn't joking!!). I then asked him how he knew that it was only I who was deceived and not him, to which he answered that he knew the truth!!
I went along to the talk trying to think the best of six day creationists however left with the distinct impression that they really are not very bright.
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
The Royal Society makes an arse of itself...
So Prof Michael Reiss gives the following talk suggesting that science teachers must engage with students who hold non-scientific beliefs and teach them why evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation for origins:
However after a brouhaha by a certain professor in Oxford, Sir Richard Roberts and Sir Harry Kroto (all FRS's) he is forced to resign:
Two interesting articles on the topic from the Guardian include Adam Rutherfords:
And a related article by the ever thoughtful Denis Alexander:
To coin a phrase, by ignoring the issue of an increasing number of Creationists the Royal Society is putting it's head in the sand. By doing so all anyone sees is a big arse.
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
Radio interview
I was interviewed about science & faith by a chap from the BBC the other day. Apart from getting Darwin's anniversary wrong (it's 200 years since his birth not death!) and calling property dualism emergent dualism, I was quite pleased! Click here to listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)