Binary Oasis

I came across this in my reading today: “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”  Proverbs 12:15

I take that to mean that open-mindedness is a virtue.

In reading Dinesh D’Souza’s blog, he comes off as a fairly arrogant person, so I’ve often wondered about his views on humility. He was given a chance to answer that (more or less) in his debate with Dan Barker. See Part 11, about 2:59 into the video (runs a little over 3 minutes for the question and answer).

I struggle a bit with the idea of evangelism, since I’m not certain of what I know. Sure, I have convictions, and I believe the data points to a particular conclusion, but I also believe that I could be wrong. In light of those thoughts, I found Piper’s quote interesting:

“Humility knows it is fallible, and so considers criticism and learns from it; but also knows that God has made provision for human conviction and that he calls us to persuade others.”

Good food for thought.

Quoted here.

The simulation argument recently got a fair amount of press.  Basically, it suggests that there is a reasonable likelihood that we are living in a simulation.  The basic argument goes something like this: there are likely many advanced civilizations that have enough computing power to create virtual models of worlds and universes such as our own, and the number of advanced simulation worlds is comparable (or even much greater than?) the number of real universes (one?), so it stands to reason that we are part of a simulation (so goes the argument).

It’s certainly interesting to think about, and we certainly can use some logic to consider if that could be true.  This makes me think of a common atheistic argument (that Dawkins came up with, or at least popularized): God almost definitely doesn’t exist since He would have to come from somewhere, and the chance that he arose out of chance is not really worth considering.  We are told that it is unacceptable to consider that the rules that apply to us don’t apply to God: that is, that He is not bound by time, or that he could have existed from eternity past.  Does Dawkins also have to abandon any discussion about the simulation argument?  I’d be curious to hear his ideas about it.

Buzz Out Loud Episode 553 (right click to “Save As”) is a fun audio introduction to these ideas.

Daniel Dennett’s 2006 book Breaking the Spell is a book that was recommended to me by Adam, whose book review of The God Delusion at secweb.org suggested that reading Dawkins might not be the most useful book for me to read (since I am a theist). I’m glad for the recommendation, and I have tried to summarize my thoughts on Dennett’s work.

* I tend to agree that we can and should study religion scientifically, at least to an extent, though I don’t think it is dishonest to suggest that elements of religion will be outside of the realms of practical science.

* Is it okay to subject religion to this study and analysis? Drawing parallels to taboo subjects in fairly recent history (like the study of the human body using cadavers), he is trying to strengthen his eventual argument that we will be better off for the study of religion.

* Do most priests/pastors/rabbis/etc. believe that we should not use our intellect? Or, at the very least, do these religious teachers suggest that we should deny or suppress information that conflicts with our beliefs? I’m inclined to say that it is often true that religious leaders don’t allow for the possibility of mysteries in our lives. Our leaders come to resolute answers, but perhaps we need to come to humble conclusions, so that we are not blind to truth that is clearer to see in the future.

* Definitely don’t read this book if you don’t believe in evolution. It would be largely wasted time, though not entirely so, since he does use logic and philosophical arguments as well.

* Dennett has been categorized as a “Darwinian fundamentalist” by Stephen Jay Gould for the “influential but misguided ultra-Darwinian manifesto,” Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. That perspective rears its head in this book as well. While Dennett, on some level, realizes that he is presenting only theories (albeit compelling theories in some cases), he nonetheless tries to attach a sort of purity to his ideas about cultural evolution (and in particular religious evolution) by using the consensus of biological evolution as more than just an analogous idea.

* Dennett has a different idea than that of most of the atheists that I’ve heard, who claim that a particular religion or religions in general are man-made deceptions. While Dennett endorses the idea that elements of religion are due to outright or subtle deception, he instead notes that “at the root of human belief in gods lies an instinct on a hair trigger: the disposition to attribute agency — beliefs and desires and other mental states — to anything complicated that moves.” In other words, Dennett’s view is that religion is not fundamentally a deliberate fraud. Instead, his primary proposal seems to be that religion and its accompanying rituals were designed by cultural evolution.

* Dennett is very good at pointing out the common fallacies of religion in practice. In that sense, his book might be similar to reformation literature put out by religious leaders. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to allow for the existence of the religious reformer, and this weakens his argument considerably. In one particular case, he notes that religion (presumably through cultural evolution — not by the design of any particular person) holds up the “fundamental incomprehensibility of God” as an implication that so-called religious “experts” “don’t understand what they are talking about.” Certainly it is true that some “experts” are not fit to be called experts, but it is deceptive to suggest that difficult problems are not seriously considered by honest and conscientious religious leaders. Theology? You might not know that it is a serious study if you relied solely on Dennett.

* Dennett claims that “the fine tuning of the laws of physics can be explained without postulating an Intelligent Tuner…” and then says he has covered this “extensively” in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” “(especially ch 1 and 7).” This, at least on the surface, appears to be a deceptive statement. I would suggest that he has only very weak explanations for the apparent suitability of the universe for life. His arguments are heavy in analogies to biological evolution (and analogy does not a strong argument make). He is not out of the mainstream in this respect, however, since most explanations for the surprising suitability of the universe for life depend on arcane proposals of multiple universes or repeating universes. He also tries to avoid the problem by drawing the reader’s attention to the supposedly more difficult problem of the existence of God. He leverages Dawkins’ argument that the possibility of God existing is vanishingly small since (I paraphrase) the idea of such of profound and complex God is much more of a stretch that the idea that something as complex and unlikely as DNA could be created by chance. Dennett then addresses the theist’s objection that God is likely outside of our scientific rules: for instance, God has always existed, in spite of the profound nature of that proposal. That’s not playing fair, he claims. Perhaps he is right, but perhaps not, though Dennett does not effectively address this possibility (in my opinion).

* Now I draw a similar analogy and call to Dennett’s search for better understanding of cultural and religious evolution: just as he acknowledges that his story as he presents it may need to be revised, we can, in good faith, do the same with our understanding of God. For instance, I can update my theology to include a God that has worked through evolution (a statement that invites attack the way I have said it) and a Cosmological Big Bang. That is to say that I don’t have all the answers — in fact, I may be mistaken when I think that I have certain answers — but it does not follow that I have to reject religion or the existence of God.

* Dennett puts a great deal of value in some things that most religious people at least give lipservice to: namely, love and humility. In fact, he seems to profess that love is the most important thing in this world, and I would dare to interpret him as saying that a humble search for truth is a close second.

* Dennett’s Appendix B entitled “Some More Questions About Science” is some of his best writing, in my opinion. In it, he is careful to note the limitations of sciences while retaining the reasonable and consistent view that science is a reliable source of objective knowledge. He effectively counters the arbitrary dismissal of certain scientific conclusions by those who might wish to avoid those conclusions based on ideological reasons. Of course the key word here is “arbitrary.” Certainly we can and should question conclusions, and we can be suspicious of certain conclusions if were made by those with a conflict of interest, but we still need to judge the conclusions based on their merits.

* In general, Dennett appears to be objective, though he does make it fairly clear in the end that he believes that there is no God and that religion is bunk (though he usually uses softer language).

Ultimately, I like to think of the central issue of this debate as being this: can we explain away our existence using purely materialistic methods? We have not explained our existence satisfactorily using materialistic explanations in my opinion. Perhaps I am too greedy, since we have apparently explained so much (with perhaps the best materialistic successes being evolution and also our highly validated timeline of the Big Bang shortly after what we might call the beginning), but we still have in front of us the two most difficult problems known to man:

1) How did life first begin from non-life?

2) How do we explain the beginning of the universe?

I have much faith in science and logic, though I’m certainly not ready to put my faith in science to explain these things. Can we explain them by resorting to God? Well, certainly it is not a logical fallacy to suggest that he created the first self-replicating organisms or that He kicked off the Big Bang. Are there compelling reasons to put our faith in that explanation? Are there compelling reasons to believe that God exists and that we should live in a manner that would bring Him glory? I for one intend to find out.

While my investigation could be a lifelong journey, I plan to spend extra time in 2008 to examine any evidence, as directly as possible, of God’s revelation to us. Please feel free to give me food for thought or pointers to more resources.

I’ve been curious for a while now what John Piper’s views are about evolution.  If I can’t find that information online or in a book, I hope to one day talk to Piper about that.  Regardless, the latest monthly newsletter at DesiringGod.org was entitled “Learn from Darwin,” so Piper and his organization at least do not have a completely hostile view of Darwin.  Following a link to another Piper sermon reveals some more interesting information, as well as some great advice from the late Clyde Kilby as concerns what we can or should do when we juxtapose our awe of the world around us with the inclination to suggest that evolutionary theory renders our lives meaningless.  (Scroll to the end of the sermon to see Clyde Kilby’s Resolutions.)

I’ve wondered recently why God didn’t give us a clearer view of Himself. That is, why is it that the revelation that we have is a revelation that seems to be clouded at times? Why couldn’t we have a more lucid account of God, and why couldn’t we be given a Bible that has complete uniformity, no matter what manuscripts are used? Why are some passages hard to understand, and why are some passages and some doctrines easy to warp into heresy?

I think that I may still struggle with these ideas for some time, but John Piper’s two sermons entitled “Why God Inspired Hard Texts” provide a plausible explanation. Transcripts and audio are available here and here, or google “Why God Inspired Hard Texts” if the link is broken.

Newsweek published some interesting survey results this week. If I had to summarize the main thrust of the survey, I’d say that it concerned religious belief systems and how it shapes ideas about evolution. Surveys can be colored to support a particular bias, but this particular subject matter is straightforward enough, and I can’t see any motivation for Newsweek to try to skew the results, so I assume that they are credible and representative.

Getting to the point, a few of the results of the survey are as follows:

• 91% of American adults believe in God
• 82% identify themselves as Christians
• 48% reject the theory of evolution
• 34% say that they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact
• 73% of Evangelical Protestants believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years

Apparently just about 40% of Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestants believe that last statement (that is, that God created human in their present form within the last 10,000 years).

This is very interesting to me. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about how we learn and form our thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. On those subjects that have any degree of complexity, or those subjects for which we gain the knowledge indirectly, we very often rely on sources that we believe to be credible. If I am correct, the “credible source” that shaped the thought of Evangelical Protestants is Henry Morris. For a slightly younger generation (perhaps those in their 20’s and 30’s), Ken Ham has been the source.

To the consternation of many Evangelicals, Young Earth Creationism has fallen out of favor with many Christians. I suspect that there are a number of interworking factors behind this trend, but perhaps the most significant factor was the rallying of a particular credentialed community to create a structured argument for Intelligent Design. This community was (and still is, I assume) comprised of individuals from a variety of faiths, but each was/is trying to use scientific principles, logic, and philosophy to build support for a theistic world view. While the impact of the ID argument has been limited outside of Christian circles (and other theistic circles), it did have the impact of opening many eyes within the Christian community. As a general rule, ID accepts the old universe (i.e. 13 to 14 billion years old), though ID’s proponents typically deny that evolution can explain the variety of life that we see on earth.

So here we stand with a seemingly insurmountable gulf between the belief system of Christianity and the theory of evolution (which, as I understand, is nearly universally accepted by those in the bioligical sciences). Where do we go from here? If Francis Collins has his way, we will try to bridge these together. Could we actually believe both in God and evolution without destroying one or the other? Collins believes so. In his book The Language of God, Collins argues for the existence of a personal God, and he also argues that we have, in DNA evidence, compelling and indisputable fingerprints of evolution.

It’s easy enough for a Christian to accept the argument that an atheist only believes in evolution because of his bias against God. It’s not as easy to reject a credible and accomplished Christian physician and geneticist like Dr. Collins. For that reason, I suspect that his book would receive a more than a mention if we were to compare the survey results of a similar Newsweek poll 10 years into the future. My own opinion is that the statistics will slowly change, with fewer Christians viewing evolution as a hostile ideology and more Christians viewing it as pretty good science and the best science that we have to offer.

6/12/07 edit: an updated poll and analysis.

The Super Bowl is “the Ultimate”?  Not according to Tony Dungy (head coach of the Indianapolis Colts) and Lovie Smith (head coach of the Chicago Bears).  This website gives some interesting background behind each man, and it tells of their respective decisions to follow Christ.

I’ve been thinking and reading a lot recently about the philosophical/religious implications of what we see and experience in the natural world, including cosmology.  In particular, cosmology has some really fascinating questions and problems that literally stump the best scientists in the world.

There is one fundamental paradox about origins that anyone can understand.  It has to do with the fact that science and philosophy agree that there had to be a beginning to the universe.  Scientists have no answer to this paradox, though there have been some proposals to try to get around the paradox.  For instance, Stephen Hawking has toyed with the concept of imaginary time to get around the materialistic problem of the paradox.  Christianity, along with most major religions, have creation stories that point to God as the Creator.  Secularists might reply with this a version of this same fundamental question: “Who or what created God?”  To me, the answer is that He has always existed.  It certainly is something of a paradox, but I believe it is a very reasonable answer, especially in light of the non-answers that we get from secularists.

I’m reading Brian Greene’s book “The Fabric of the Cosmos” right now.  It is a fascinating overview of the history and current theories of cosmology.  Cosmology is full of tough and profound questions, including the most basic question of “where did everything come from?”