As Wittgenstein demonstrated, we cannot live, even at the level of everyday life, without trusting. And yet trust is a theologically ambivalent starting point for a theory of knowledge because of the persistent untrustworthiness of human beings after the Fall. Not only have the noetic effects of sin crippled our perceptions, they have given us reason to doubt the motives of others.
However, the Scriptural testimony is that God addresses us even in our sinfulness. He speaks the gospel word, in Christ: the word that judges and the word that redeems. That it judges means that it holds forth the promise that God will render all our actions meaningful. That it redeems is a promise that even though it is currently in bondage to decay, the created order has not fallen back into the chaotic void of the pre-creation. This is grounds for a realism of sorts - the goodness of God in the gospel is grounds to believe that the world is largely as we experience it.
Revelation is the basic means by which we learn anything, earthly or heavenly. The English theologian Colin Gunton wrote: ‘All kinds of things are revelatory…not necessarily of God… but of themselves, or of the order of things in the world.’ Revelation is after all the making known of that which would otherwise remain hidden or unknown. The concept that we need to help us here is that of mediation. Our access to information and knowledge is never absolute or unrestricted. It is always comes to us from outside of ourselves and involves us in acts of trust - in our physical faculties, in our peers and elders, in our experts and in God. That there is mediation involved in our knowing is not a grounds for a radical scepticism just because it is possible that we are deceived or deluded. If we acknowledge the presence of mediations we can check them and scrutinise them, evaluate them and give them their due.
Theologically speaking, it is the Spirit of God who governs the process by which our senses and our minds work together to gain any knowledge of the world (as David Hohne writes). Jesus taught that the Spirit is ‘the Spirit of Truth’ and that ‘he will lead you into all truth’; and so we are to trust that it is God by his Spirit who providentially enables human beings to learn things about the world – even if these things are not ultimately salvific. The completed and perfected form of human knowing comes through the revelation of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ, which becomes (for those who trust) saving knowledge of God as Father.
Knowing, then, is a human practice which requires cultivation. It is a skill which requires exercising. The possibility of knowing is embedded in common human life. It is dependent on the development and the maintenance of structures of trust. The more we are able to trust - our senses, each other, the experts, and God - the more, and the better, we know. Conversely, trust can easily be eroded to the great detriment of the human community. Crank theories, scuttlebut, and greed flourish where trust has been destroyed.
42 comments:
Yes, with you all the way here.
I wonder whether this analysis couldn't be extended to include the necessity of both love and hope for knowledge. The relationship of love and knowledge is a theme familiar from Augustine, but that of hope and knowledge is more a hunch in need of further development.
Yes, but as with love the requisite hope is ideally suited to a fit object. Excessive hope in quack-remedies diverts one from maintaining a proper scepticism.
Interesting subject. Could it be the pursuit of knowledge is a result of the fall.. after all they ate of the tree of the "Knowledge" of "Good" and "Evil."
Hi Michael,
I suspect I disagree with your quote:
'the goodness of God in the gospel is grounds to believe that the world is largely as we experience it.'
I disagree if you mean to say that the gospel is the primary grounds for such realism.
In order for Romans 1 to be correct that all people are 'without excuse' before God, Paul asserts or implies that all people know God, know the content of right and wrong, and know they deserve death.
Despite our sinful suppression of this knowledge, the knowledge is still there in every human, and the grounds for such knowing is in 'what has been made'. i.e. all people know it without having heard the gospel.
So the gospel isn't primary in establishing a realist epistemology. The gospel adds the message of God's grace to what people already know about God and his world.
But maybe I'm not understanding you rightly?
@MC: By hope, I was referring to Christian hope as a particular orientation to God's coming future, not wishful desire ("I hope I will get better soon"), but I see how easily speaking of the role of hope in knowledge could be misleading.
I love the clarity of your writing. With regards to Mike's comment, I'd agree with him if you take a Barthian approach. I'm happy with what you say if you have an Oliver O'Donivan approach (redemption of creation through the resurrection of Christ)
What has your study of martyrdom taught you about trust and knowledge?
As someone who has journeyed a fair distance from the mostly theological to the mostly science based view of how we know things, I find theorizing about capital-K Knowledge from a theological point of view pretty inadequate these days. For example, if you have to frame such a theory around things we know (boom!) didn't happen -- there was no Fall where our perceptions were crippled; there is no "created order" or "chaotic void of the pre-creation" -- then it makes it difficult to trust (pun intended! :) such a theory.
Science, via evolutionary theory (which you mangled in your earlier post, fwiw), really has given us a simpler, better framework for understanding how we relate to the world. Especially in comparison to some theological concepts, I mean, what does this: "it is the Spirit of God who governs the process by which our senses and our minds work together to gain any knowledge of the world" even mean? Seriously, how does the Spirit of God "govern" this process? Mechanically, how does it work? It seems to me these sorts of lofty concepts are redundant, and can't be explained, only asserted. What's the point?
Ultimately, it's that sort of "Knowing" -- shoehorning seemingly redundant concepts onto theories where they no longer fit, from creationism-lite to theological epistemology -- that to me actually creates a poverty of knowledge. It leads to superstition (especially in prayer - e.g. floods/drought), scientific hostility/ignorance, and generally an inadequate view of seeing the world that can't see outside itself, when there is a better explanation ready and waiting.
Nevertheless, I accept the historical reality of Jesus, and to me, the great challenge is reconciling that with everything we've learnt about the world/universe/reality since.
Luke, I want to sympathise with this post while suggesting that the problem lies in a slightly different place.
"Creationism-lite" is a harsh charge but I'm afraid a fair one as regards the group culture and habits of rhetoric in this town --- if not a fair charge about Michael's intellectual position, or that of many others here. But you need to appreciate the wretchedness of the alternatives. (Pardon the presumption if you already do.) The Sydney Anglican scene (& Moore College in particular) is essentially free of official creationism, and for a conservative evangelical movement this is deeply peculiar: and the people involved are aware of that peculiarity. They get attacked for it by zealots; they get looked at in suspicion from other states, and other church polities; they see the ongoing parade of lunacy in the US where this issue can never be escaped, and where bullshit attempts at integration of theological and scientific perspectives flourish. The Americans seem to be culturally committed to the idea that this is not just necessary but straightforward: from the sound of it you agree on the necessity, as I do, but understand that this is difficult work.
Against this background, the strategic disengagement practiced in Sydney looks like a good idea. It keeps theological training, and preaching, free of do-it-yourself semi-science, "theistic evolution", and the like. It preserves peace with the Baptists and the Queenslanders, and with stray creationists in the pews. It allows people to get on with their lives and ministries. It allowed professional scientists to pass through Moore College in the early nineties in peace (on this issue if not on others), less than a decade after the retirement of a former principal who was personally a creationist. And all with no blood on the streets.
The tragedy is that it isn't enough, as you rightly say, and it can't last, and it allows people to kid themselves that all evangelical rhetoric can be retained, while scientific accounts of the world are simultaneously accepted. (Really: people think this. The more belligerent speak as if this position is obvious.) Lots of people understand that this is inadequate --- Michael included, I suspect --- yet if their agenda is elsewhere, then the issue is not personally an urgent one; & the consensus is so strong that there is little they can do. But for those of us who through profession or personal commitment or knowledge are forced to integrate day-to-day, the culture gives us no active help: there is peace in the sense that there is no war, but the peace is a false one and ultimately unjust. We have to live with the dissonance, while as far as intellectual integrity goes, evangelicals are freeloading.
However I do want to disagree with you about epistemology. How does the Spirit of God govern the process of arrriving at true knowledge, and how does this work mechanically? I can give no orderly account. But I do accept that knowledge, including the specialised kind that is granted us by the natural sciences, is a personal matter with a strong moral component, shot through with trust, embedded in communities and structures and narratives and conventions. If the language of the working of God's Spirit has application anywhere, it's here.
A harder case for integration is on death. A time-honoured tradition of interpretation ascribes the advent of death to the moment of an historical Fall of an historical Adam and Eve, and insists polemically on its inalienable connection to NT thought. This cannot be harmonised, and the habits of speech it supports allow no middle ground; so this one will not go away. The Fall will do nicely as authoritative mythology --- it is true to our condition, and pregnant with meaning for interpreting society and history and so on --- but evangelical habits of speech are impatient with the category of myth. Ironically this is a sin they share with the wider society, rather than a way in which they differ from it.
@Bruce
I basically agree with your comments about Moore College on evolution and the Bible. (I'm a Moore graduate). I think most Moore graduates were not pushed to think hard enough about the chronology implied by the genealogies of Genesis, and why the 'gaps in the genealogies' theory fails to provide any 'extra' time. For more on this and for my personal solution, read here: http://originofhumanity.blogspot.com/
@luke
I think there is a point in purely asserting things to atheists and skeptics about God's existence. I think there's a point because all people (including atheists) know deep down that God is there, but have suppressed it (Romans 1). Asserting God's existence and eternity then confronts the atheist with what they already know. It forces them to choose either continued suppression or repentance. It doesn't lead to fruitful argument on the subject of God's existence, but it has a point.
This point of view doesn't mean that there can be no argument between atheists and Christians about Christianity. Argument is key in the historical areas where the Bible makes claims - like the antiquity of humanity, Jesus' existence and resurrection, and the history of God's work in Israel.
Mike, I have to say that is one of the more unlikely and fanciful solutions to the problem I have ever seen.
Luke, I'd like to see you engage with Bruce. Because he really knows what he is talking about. He's not an amateur.
Bruce, it depends what we mean by 'death'.
@MPJ: Seconded, seconded and seconded.
@Bruce - Thanks for a very thoughtful engagement here (and in many places). I feel you put many things well. I agree that historical fall requires further thought and that a lack of familiarity with a developed concept of myth is important. If I haven't done so already, can I recommend a book called Theology After Darwin? It doesn't have all the answers and like most essay collections is a little patchy in quality, but represents one of the best theological engagements with the Darwinian legacy that I've come across so far. Michael is right to suggest that your account of the interpretation of death requires further nuance, even if it accurately represents one contemporary manifestation of Christian tradition.
Yikes, my comment is so long I'm splitting it in two -- sorry!
Part 1:
Bruce, thanks for the great response! Appreciate it.
Thanks for the rundown on the state of things vis a vis science/creation in SydAng land, and the pros and cons of the current status quo. I agree with how you've framed it; your description is far more perceptive than anything I could have managed. I had a vague understanding that the situation was as you describe it locally (and having followed events in the US -- parade of lunacy indeed! -- and interacted with people from QLD online), so it's both a relief and encouragement to hear that from someone more 'in the know' than I!
As for my charge of creationism-lite, allow me to give a little personal background: in exploring these issues in the last few years, I came to see how absurd YECS et al was (as, I imagine, Michael and others did), and was generally relieved that it was largely rejected in SydAng circles, and evolution was notionally accepted. Even The Briefing published a careful piece by Sandy Grant that argued YECS was unnecessary from a purely theological point of view, and they were pilloried for it in the US!
My stance at the time was the general SydAng view that evolution could be accepted as 'How God did it' (ugh), Jesus was the real deal (that hasn't changed), and creation issues were therefore not particularly worthwhile, the historicity of Jesus making creation debates somewhat moot. This was my understanding of the 'false peace' you eloquently describe.
However, as I thought about the issue further, read some more, followed the neo-atheist debates, and discussed it with a newly (de?)converted atheist friend, I began to understand how inadequate this view was. Specifically, that you can't accept evolution as just something that happened long ago, then suddenly drop God into the equation when humans appear, and get all fuzzy and hand-wavy with the science from that point on. I was surprised, because all the smart people in SydAng circles didn't seem to have this problem, so I started pressing people on exactly how they understood Genesis & evolution.
Well, it turns out that for all the talk about not taking Genesis 1 literally, how daft YECS is, and how we can accept evolution, what isn't mentioned is that Genesis 2 is a whole different kettle of fish! For example, one trained scientist (background in physics I think) still working with academics in Sydney, said point blank to a congregation "Oh, history starts in Genesis 2" immediately after going to great pains to say evolution is true; another theologian (Mark Baddeley, as I discussed on his blog) who, after huge fights with particularly nutty creationists, actually doesn't accept evolution and believes Genesis 2(ish) on is history; and so on.
So, for all the pooh-poohing of creationism and notional "peace" with science (such as it is), to my surprise that's only true for Gen 1. Beyond that? Perish the thought! Therefore, to me it seems like a more subtle creationism is still well and truly embedded in theological thought (from the pulpit to the pews), and that's what I dub creationism-lite. All the same logical errors and problems, just one chapter in, and with the rather peculiar (to put it mildly!) acceptance of both all science and all evangelical thought, as though the last 200+ years of scientific endeavour is a happy blip with absolutely no implications for theology whatsoever.
Anyway, that's my background :)
Part 2:
I also appreciate The Fall as "authoritative mythology" -- i.e., it's a pretty damn good description -- and I feel bad that if Michael was to publicly accept this (Michael?) the wolves would start circling almost immediately, such is the straight jacket placed on (public) free thought by others on those with theological influence, which is deeply ironic, really. Loyalty to the team trumps all else it seems, including Christian behaviour in some cases (again speaking of the others).
More broadly, in my view I think we're well overdue for a radical rethink/upheaval of theological thought at some of the most fundamental levels, as I don't see much choice to do otherwise. The status quo is zombified cognitive dissonance that died in any intellectual sense long ago and keeps stumbling forward due to it's own institutionalized inertia.
I've read Polkinghorne and a few others here and there, but there seems to be a huge gulf in serious engagement -- not just appeasement -- with these issues, so I'd be interested if you have any suggestions of books/talks etc that are worth checking out.
For my own part, I find the Simulation Argument really compelling on a conceptual level (though not a pragmatic one, necessarily) as a foot hold into how we can describe and inhabit a self-contained universe and still believe in a big (albeit distant) God. Actually, I really, really love the Simulation Argument :) I've read Davies' criticisms of it though.
The only way forward I can see for the future of theology is revolution, not evolution (boom! :), which sadly puts me in crackpot company from a SydAng perspective, but it's the only way forward I can see intellectually; I'm pretty sure there's no other option. Which is not necessarily a bad thing :)
--
@Mike R, I disagree completely.
Gentlemen thank you for the kind responses and the stimulus to further discussion. I'll have to postpone this to Australia Day at least, but will get back to you all in due course.
@Luke- I don't think that you can right off a biblical epistemology, particularly, if you are happy with the simulation argument. I think it is possible to question and critique, but surely science cannot rule it out.
The issue appears to be over revelation: is God a distant, obscure God, or is He one who has spoken and with whom we can have a relationship?
But I look forward to Bruce's response tomorrow.
It does trouble me that my view of origins gets such short shrift. I'm assuming you guys just read my 'summary', rather than the Draft article. The summary does sound wacky, I admit. I do think origins is the number one problem in terms of the general public accepting the Bible's profferred 'knowledge'.
Maybe I could leave some key questions which I think need to be addressed regarding the relation between knowing through Genesis, and knowing the world we have found in science/history
Do you think that Genesis (post Flood) presents a small number of high longevity people in the midst of a large number of normal longevity people? How do you explain the decline of these high-longevity people occurring only
post-flood (rather than post-fall)? If you see the genealogies as depicting real life-spans, do you accept
that any gaps in the genealogies (Gen 5,11) have no impact on the resultant chronology? Do you accept that the Tower of Babel story provides sufficient data to attempt
to date the events and determine the language which was
scattered? These are questions I never heard asked or answered, but I think they are key in 'knowing' our origins,
from Genesis.
On death occurring pre-fall, I just picked up Dembski's 'End
of Christianity', which has a fairly novel approach to solving the question. Is it getting much attention out there?
Mike - even reading the article.... it is one of the more bizarre notions I have heard. Are we in Narnia or something?
Bruce, no worries, take your time!
Hi Mike, I skipped down to the summary (burying the lead there a bit!), and it is pretty out there :) That's not necessarily a death knell -- the universe is a weird place (or as Dawkins would say 'queerer than we can suppose'), the NT has some weird stuff (e.g. Paul's experience) -- but I'd need a pretty compelling reason to take that leap with your theory. It seems to me you're trying to synthesise a pretty literal reading of Genesis with modern scientific concepts, and given I don't subscribe to the former, I have no need to attempt the latter.
I think your theory highlights a problem with a lot of modern Christian thought that does accept science, and attempts to come up with an explanation (myself included), and that is: why didn't Jesus/God just explain it that way and save us all the hassle? There's various counter-arguments -- he was speaking to a specific people at a specific time; he only focused on what was necessary etc -- but they're never going to fully address the weakness.
The other problem with views that do accept evolution is the 'No day zero' problem. That is, if there wasn't a YECS-ish creation, where did the myths come from? (Also, can you imagine living at that time and having no idea where humanity/life/the universe came from at all? No sense of millions of years past, dinosaurs, anything. Weird!) You've attempted one explanation, fair enough. Generally though I imagine the simplest natural explanation is best, and that is the early mythology probably evolved out of/in response to other Ugarit/Canaanite mythology of the time. I find taking a more naturalistic (for want of a better word?) view of the OT much more preferable, as OT God's evil bastard moments can be attributed to the humans of the time, who develop a religion that actual God-God eventually co-opts and uses to enter the world through Jesus, giving it a very thorough makeover in the process. (But again, the 'Why didn't he just say that...' problem exists.)
Nevertheless, the sooner we stop treating the bible as a quasi-divine, magical find-a-word, the better IMO. I understand the desire to clutch to it in light of how badly the Catholic church has/is/will be messed up, but I think it's time to shed the skin of protestantism too, in time for a modern science-based re-think.
Now if I can just find where I put those 95 theses so I can nail them to my Facebook page... :P
Oh, and @Polis , absolutely distant :) One of the biggest factors that lead me to change my position in recent years was realising that praying for stuff was not only dumb (e.g. imagine what the weather patterns would look like on the nightly news if God did send rain for drought, while simultaneously dropping fine spots in for weddings!), but ultimately cruel -- putting the fate of yourself/your loved ones in a seemingly capricious, irrational, and un-understandable but close God was just cruel.
And to throw in something vaguely on-topic :) in terms of 'Knowing', what should we make of the Islamic world, which is pretty much bizarro-Christianity? That is, you have an eerily familiar parallel universe of publications, blogs, theologians, a holy book, committed, sincere believers, the same "trust" in God, etc, and all be completely & utterly wrong (from a Christian and secular) point of view. Slightly unnerving, no?
I deleted my summary on my origins site, so people actually read my serious interaction with Green and others. You guys convinced me to do that ;)
It's the 'other world', 'parallel universe' that seems to bother people..hence 'Narnia'.
I'll say this: If you're a Christian, you believe in other worlds. Heaven is in a universe parallel to ours. Jesus is in a different universe now. This world will be destroyed, and we'll go to a parallel universe - it will be a different universe since there won't be death and decay, but it will be a universe with commonalities to ours like language and skin and the tree of life.
Peter implies that the Flood destroyed a different world to the one we're in: 'By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed'.He contrasts 'the world of that time' with 'the present heavens and earth'. (2 Peter 3:6-7 The inclusion of the word translated 'present' implies a different world.
Note that some of the more 'bizarre' elements of my theory were taken straight from Moore College lecturers:
Peter Jensen 'it may be that we should make a distinction between Homo sapiens and humans...the image of God may have spread out from Adam to all the other Homo sapiens already existing contemporaneously with Adam' (not a word for word quote, but I guarantee the sense is right)
Robert Doyle 'the garden of Eden is in a different time-space continuum to us'.
Why didn't the Bible spell it out the way I have? There's enough in the Bible to deduce my theory. And we only needed the theory after our scientists had discovered the ancient character of Homo sapiens, and the lack of a universal flood in this world.
The label 'bizarre' drew me out to another longish post. Bye for now.
Michael, Dembski's proposal for death before the fall is, I agree, weird, on all sorts of levels, but it has been seriously discussed as 'the way out' in at least one Anglican church that I know of. The way it plays fast and loose with causality, sequence (that created by God as the structuring vehicle for our relationship with God), and the meaning of the curse makes it a remarkable as a recourse to solve the problem created by attempts to meld evolutionary materialism and biblical creation (yes, Bruce, I lurk in the pews as a classical biblical creationist).
Thanks Watcher, that's interesting.
I accept Dembski's approach to causality, that effect can come before cause, and does in fact do so with respect to natural death before the fall, as well as with respect to the retrospective crediting of Jesus' death to pre-Christ believers.
I like the strong view of God's sovereignty on which these ideas rely.
However, in terms of MJ's post, Dembski's theory does seem to require a lot of trust in both God and in the findings of science. Others might want to classify Dembski's reverse causality as a 'crank theory'... It gets back to the question of whom you're trusting, I guess.
Michael,
This is your site so I guess responsibility rests in the first instance with you.
Luke gives every indication of having more faith in the opinions of men than the Word of God.
Are you just going to let him die in that condition?
I... didn't realize someone was out to kill me.
*Locks doors* ...
*Barricades room* ...
Just caught the great NOVA documentary on the Intelligent Design trial in Dover, and with the mention of Dembski's above, and thinking about Michael's comment:
It is dependent on the development and the maintenance of structures of trust. The more we are able to trust - our senses, each other, the experts, and God - the more, and the better, we know. Conversely, trust can easily be eroded to the great detriment of the human community. Crank theories, scuttlebut, and greed flourish where trust has been destroyed.
... It's amazing how often vocal Christians in the US involved with ID have been the ones who have been utterly untrustworthy - dishonest about their intentions, dishonest about the science, and dishonest about their background. It's hard to estimate how much harm and damage they've done to the reputation and standing of Christendom, especially for those working in scientific areas.
But imo that's the thing -- eventually, if you are acting in a dishonest way, especially in matters of capital-T Truth, you will be found out, much as the ID movement was (though it hasn't stopped people like Driscoll advocating it, but that should be no surprise I guess).
Secular society gets so demonised in Christian circles I think sometimes it's hard for people to understand just how much scientists are committed to that capital-T Truth, but they've historically proved much more reliable than the church, which should be (and I guess is) a source of some embarrassment for us all.
(At least, if anything, their weakness has, ironically, shown the strength of the accepted theory of evolution, i.e. the absence of 'design'.)
It's somewhat the same with the global warming stuff -- the dishonest may drone on and on and on, but they get found out. For example, when those taking a, shall we say, unusual position turn out to have beliefs in One World Government conspiracies theories (for example), it's not that hard to work out who to trust.
It's just a shame that in matters of science, Christians in the US particularly have (with notable exceptions) acted in such a hypocritical, untrustworthy way.
(Though I guess they can always blame us for Ken Ham.)
oops.. "their weakness" should read "the weakness of the creationist/ID movement...".
Luke I have been trying to make time for this in the last couple of days, but life and work keep preventing me. Which provides one way into the subject, as it happens:
One of the issues in considering the relationship of scientific knowledge to the rest of life (not just theological speech) is how we come to know things. (And of course, this is the official topic of this series of Michael's.) So for now, to gauge how much we agree or disagree, could I ask you: how would you differentiate between professional scientific knowledge and "ordinary" knowledge? (Here "ordinary" means that of the-man-on-the-street, or of the scientist in his or her private life.) Are they continuous in some way, or of utterly different kind, or would you give some other account?
In my opinion this is one of the key issues here, and since it isn't explicitly religious or explicitly on controversial matters, it might provide a helpful way into the problem.
I'd be interested to hear your take.
In any case, I'll be back to you at more length in the next days.
Michael,
I am serious.
Neil
Hi Neil,
It's a good thing that you are concerned for the spiritual well-being of those who post, however I think you have taken your concern in the wrong direction.
I presume you are asking Michael J to work harder at arguing Luke into the faith and into a higher view of the Bible's authority. Or perhaps you want Michael J to rebuke Luke for his views.
If it's the former, the arguments are available to Luke, and Luke could ask Michael if he doesn't know where to look. If it's the latter, Michael is not Luke's pastor, so it's not his responsibility to give a rebuke. What's more, forums like this need to be available where people can express their opinion without being suppressed for heretical or errant views.
This freedom is good for us. It means we know the best arguments against Christian faith are being made and are accessible to us. Without access to those arguments, we wouldn't be as confident in the answers which we have. After all, the Trinitarian theology was developed against the Arian heresy. The Reformation theology was developed against Catholic heresy and error.
We need to let Luke make his errors and even his heresies. This is actually a very good forum for him to do so. Just look at the question from Bruce Y. That's an inspired question for delving into the question of knowledge - scientific and otherwise. If I were Luke's friend, that's exactly the discussion I'd want him to have. And Michael J has provided the forum for it to happen.
So I do gently suggest you leave your probing at that.
Pt 1...
@Mike R, I'm reminded of the saying vis a vis wrestling porcine creatures :)
@Bruce, no worries, I get email notifications so no rush :)
I've been giving your question some thought:
One of the issues in considering the relationship of scientific knowledge to the rest of life (not just theological speech) is how we come to know things. (And of course, this is the official topic of this series of Michael's.) So for now, to gauge how much we agree or disagree, could I ask you: how would you differentiate between professional scientific knowledge and "ordinary" knowledge? (Here "ordinary" means that of the-man-on-the-street, or of the scientist in his or her private life.) Are they continuous in some way, or of utterly different kind, or would you give some other account?
That's a big topic, so I'll try and narrow it down a bit, but if I miss what you were getting at by all means point me in another direction and I'll take a stab at that.
I guess, generally speaking, the pursuit of scientific knowledge in a formal, professional sense, is a continuum from a *certain kind* of knowledge that a lay person can pursue, given there's nothing magical about science per-se, it's just inquiry into the natural world in a formalised way. (I use "natural" not just to distinguish from the supernatural, but philosophical etc.) We're just not very good at it as a species, which is why we need that formality, as it's a very messy business.
However, the "knowledge" (of things right or wrong) the lay person may hold may come from far more sources beyond that which loosely could be defined as scientific inquiry. That may range from personal knowledge about another person's character, to knowledge about the past from historians (or historical documents/artifacts), or "knowledge" about the future which their $5/minute fortune telling hotline told them. Lots of different kinds of "knowledge"!
A lay person (or scientist in their private life) may also hold "knowledge" about the world/universe/humanity which comes from the bible, and I think this is the biggest source of conflict in how we know what we know. We existed for a long time with no other authoritative sources of knowledge, and so it naturally expanded to fill the void. However, does prayer work because it's mentioned in the bible, or can we observe it's efficacy (or lack thereof) in the world? (Assuming we avoid errors in attributing causality, which requires knowledge of erros of logic!) That is, should I trust theological experts and biblical accounts, or should I trust the observations (formal and informal) of the world around us? Likewise must facts of the world conform to ancient biblical accounts, or can they be discovered independently, and authoritatively, even if they contradict biblical accounts?
Obviously I side with the scientific view here, and it's also why I earlier took issue with Michael's statement "God by his Spirit who providentially enables human beings to learn things about the world" -- I could only accept this on an extremely abstract, meta level, otherwise I'd tend towards the biological and historical for how we learn and how we've built knowledge, respectively.
Pt 2...
If I can head off on a tangent here: perhaps the biggest problem in dealing with religious "knowledge" is the need for absolutes -- there can be no probabilities, either you believe something or you don't, and any cause of "doubt" is problematic. I think that's too constraining, and contribues to all-or-nothing fallacies that get the YECS crowd (and the creationism-lite crowd ;) in a bind -- either XYZ is true, or the whole thing falls in a heap. It also puts things which would question the absoluteness of certain "knowledge" into the off-limits, unthinkable category, and I find that problematic. To me, it's much more interesting to think in terms of probabilities of scientific and historical truths, and navigate your way to certain outcomes and likelihoods, without feeling like you're about to get kicked out fo the team for thinking things which are otherwise off-limits. Plus, the rapid change in knowledge should keep us humble in asserting absolutes in any case.
In that sense, I don't feel I have to start with a theological construct (which was born in the pre-scientific-revolution world). Instead, I like to whittle the biblical stuff to what seems historically true, and think about how to reconcile that with what we know is true from science (and general observation, sans-superstition). This gives a more "minimal" Christianity, but it conversely frees us up to think more broadly about ethics, morality, and so on. (I of course accept there has been a lot of deep thought on these issues from a purely-theological point of view; my point is now there is much more to factor in.)
I realize this seems radical, but the whole pursuit of theological knowledge (for want of a better term) has been one a progressive one, not a static revelation that happened once where all was revealed and that's that. Our entire existence as a species has been about the slow progress in understanding what is capital-T True about the world, our universe (and potentially those beyond), and ourselves, and I don't think that process stopped in a revelatory sense when the ink dried on the last NT book (matters of interpretation aside). Of course, we've managed to stuff things in pretty epic ways (see: the Catholic Church), so I understand the desire to try and pin our knowledge on something other than/greater than ourselves, but I think this ultimately results in the pendulum swinging too far the other way...
Anyway, the pursuit of capital-T Truth/knowledge has continued, and accelerated dramatically with the scientific revolution, and I'm happy to accept this "new" knowledge ("new" as in ~150 years old, in the case of evolution!) -- it's intellectually liberating (if institutionally isolating!) and is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, with no loyalty to any particular team, other than that broad, genuine spirit of inquiry.
Anyway, I'll shut up for now -- not sure if that hit on what you were interested in, but that's some general thoughts which hopefully gives you some idea of where I'm coming from :)
Err, let me rephrase (it helps to remember the other half of your point ;)
A random thought prompted by Mike R's comment...
What does it say about the state of modern evangelicalism that holding to (and thinking through) well established scientific theories ("theory" in the "theory of gravity" sense) gets you labeled a heretic?
In Sydney circles at least we like to consider ourselves a highly educated, highly literate, intellectually sophisticated bunch (and therefore pay lip service to science, as Bruce earlier described), however, you can hold wacky, junk science positions which certainly wouldn't get taught in any high school, while still scoffing at the YECSers, and be a respected theologian and teacher (I'm not referring to Michael here -- something to be said for keeping your cards close, I guess :). How do we get away with such scientific heresy -- contradicting the basic textbook science of most year 9 classrooms -- and still claim the intellectual high ground? There's a deep irony there about Sydney clinging to it's pet views (do otherwise and be damned, literally), while allowing scientific heresy (and heresy is the wrong word; it's just Things Which Are Not True) to bubble away unconsidered and unaddressed regardless.
Either evangelical theology (and what we "know" there) or science has to give, and I doubt anyone's going to be overthrowing modern science any time soon...
And if we don't do anything, another 150 years will go by as though everything's fine, when there's some very serious thinking that needs to done. Anyway, I digress...
Luke, that's a partial answer to my question, and I'd like to follow up on that aspect of your reply. Lots of other things in there too, but there is a time for everything (as the Scripture also teaches).
You seem happy with a continuity between scientific knowledge and other kinds of knowledge, which is a good start: if this isn't granted, then it's much harder to make headway. And based on your paragraph about how the knowledge "the lay person may hold may come from far more sources beyond that which loosely could be defined as scientific inquiry", you're happy to allow for other genuine "knowledge": while you don't have respect for fortune tellers, I assume you do have respect for professional historical enquiry.
Now history doesn't look or sound like the natural sciences: and neither it should, as its object is different. Part of the difference is that natural scientists can transcend their objects of study in a way that is not possible in other organised forms of enquiry. Cooperation is easier, more exhaustive observation (let alone experiment) is possible; decisive progress is more within our grasp. But the objects of enquiry are different in themselves, between different disciplines, and this also contributes a different character to the disciplines in their turn. The military strategy of the Byzantine Empire is just a different sort of thing to the system of charmonium states in particle physics; it's even sensible to ask whether there was such a thing as an overarching Byzantine strategy, in a way that it is not sensible to query whether the charmonia really exist ...
Having said all this, I think you are rushing too quickly to align '"knowledge" about the world/universe/humanity which comes from the bible' with other accounts. Is the same thing really being discussed?
Let's go right to the question "must facts of the world conform to ancient biblical accounts, or can they be discovered ... even if they contradict biblical accounts?"; and why not go straight for the early chapters of Genesis. There is at least one assumed cosmology in there that is flatly contradicted by other knowledge of the world: I mean, the earth as lying in the midst of the waters; in the creation account God sets it apart there and orders the world, whereas in the flood story he lets the waters cover the earth and wipe away what he has made, the ark excepted.
The world isn't like that. And so an appropriation of Genesis that teaches this cosmology, or that asserts that God himself teaches this cosmology in Genesis, is in conflict with all sorts of other knowledge of the world. However Genesis has other concerns, and is about things other than this cosmology, even if it uses it; even if it assumes it. Are those things worth discussing and persevering with? And are they the kinds of things that permit Genesis to be treated as an authoritative work? (Bear in mind that the nature of authority depends on the nature of the work: the Christian doctrine of scripture has Proverbs and Psalms as authoritative, if it comes to that.) I would answer "yes" to both questions, but would like to hear your reaction.
If one is going to read Genesis, however, it helps to be able to read it on its own terms, rather than rushing to harmonise it with extrabiblical knowledge; and this is where your reaction to Michael's way of speaking is too wholesale. Michael is using habits of speech from within Christian thought, and at some points he refers to "Salvation History" without brackets, scare-quotes, explanations, or apology. This is the custom here, and I disagree with it too. But one can disagree with a way of speaking without disagreeing with the things said: an extra step is necessary for that.
There's more to say on all these points ... but let me have your reaction to that as it stands.
Hi Bruce, sure, yes I accept history as genuine source of knowledge. I think history vs science has been one of the bigger disconnects in the atheist/science v Christianity debates, usually because Christians are arguing with (NT) history on their side, and assume everything before that can work itself out, while the atheist side says "There is no evidence for God" by which they mean "There is no scientific evidence for God in the creation/sustaining of the world" and figure after that point can work itself out (and therefore Jesus gets airbrushed out of history).
As for Genesis' concerns beyond a mythological cosmology, "Are those things worth discussing and persevering with?" Well, maybe, but I guess the primary problem is that even with a very nuanced reading of Genesis, we're still pointed in the wrong direction. Specifically, the problem of design -- the world appears designed, but there is no design, per se. There's complexity from simplicity, and we can get very abstract about God being a mathematician or tweaking the physical constants that underpin the universe, but that's a world away from what is described -- by mythology or otherwise -- in Genesis.
So, if we talk about knowledge and trust as Michael did:
The more we are able to trust - our senses, each other, the experts, and God - the more, and the better, we know. Conversely, trust can easily be eroded to the great detriment of the human community. Crank theories, scuttlebut, and greed flourish where trust has been destroyed.
...Genesis doesn't get us off to a good start! It's not particularly trustworthy, especially not weighed again the vast amount of contradictory knowledge we've built up in the last several hundred years. It has also produced a lot of crank theories and scuttlebut.
As for "habits of speech", they may just be that, but if they're habits that reflect something that isn't really true, then that's a bit of a problem. You say you disagree with it too, so maybe we're in agreement here? I'm not quite sure. In any case, I think it would be more productive (broadly speaking) for us to be able to speak plainly about what is and what isn't, without having to take the scenic route through ancient habits of speech to get there :)
These "habits" also have serious repercussions when we (in Syd Ang land at least) are still trying to cling to part of Genesis as historically authoritative, and this gives us the scientific heresy of "History starts in Gen 2" -- the seemingly widely held "creationism-lite" view I've gone on about earlier. I raise it again because discerning what is a "habit of speech" and what is considered actual history becomes a very tricky thing indeed -- I'm not even sure where Michael would come down on this vis a vis his own post (Michael, if you're following along, your thoughts?).
All that said, I don't find the (un)reliability of Genesis or the OT in general particularly problematic -- there's plenty we ignore quite happily as is; I don't mind adding Genesis to the list :)
contd...
pt2...
The question of trust though (as per Michael's post) is a key one, and one I struggle a lot with today. Most Christian leaders (in Syd Ang land at the very least) aren't just unreliable sources on origins, their (mistaken) view of origins has God active in the world, and active in the world today, and that leads too all kinds of faulty thinking, particularly in the pews (but you can't blame them too much for accepting what they're taught!).
There is a fundamentally untrustworthy world view about God's involvement in the world, with evangelicals seeing God's involvement starting with origins, culminating in Jesus, and continuing today in our daily lives (hence prayer, and rich westerners making inane comments like "God is good" when he "answers" their prayers & with a new house/job/whatever, ugh!), whereas I think we know "creation" in its various flavours wasn't necessary, Jesus was a historical reality, but God's involvement today is, I would submit, more or less non-existent -- we now know rains do or don't fall because we petition God, for example, just like we know we evolved without the need for a designer.
It's this worldview that takes science/origins stuff from a seemingly arcane debate about what was, to a fairly pressing issue of what is today, which I see in my friends and indeed my old ways of thinking, and therefore I especially take issue with it being invoked to frame how we know what we know, because it's the problem, not the solution!
Hope that makes some sense... :)
@ Luke: I am enjoying Bruce's responses to you. While I appreciate the seriousness of your points, I feel like you are assuming that your analysis of prayer and of God working in the world is a knock-down unanswerable argument. We have batted this issue around in other forums, and I don't think you take any notice of the very good points that have been made against your view, so I am not inclined to go there again. But I wouldn't want anyone to think that just because I haven't taken it on here that I think your views are a given.
@Michael, ouch, well I'm certainly enjoying the conversation. I'm not assuming my argument is unanswerable -- the point of debate for me is to find out what those counter-arguments may be, but obviously I'm arguing my position for a reason, too.
Maybe I have a terrible memory, but I honestly don't remember discussing this with you before?? I also don't remember the counter-arguments made in whatever discussion this was -- are you sure it was with me? I understand if you don't want to go back over whatever it was, but if you do feel like encapsulating the gist of the counter points in a few bullet points, it would be quite appreciated! :)
I'm honestly not trying to flog a dead horse here, I really think it's an (if not *the*) 'rubber meets the road' issue where what we know and what is real meet :)
Hey Bruce, this is pretty random, but if you're still around I'm still keen to continue this discussion wherever. Cheers!
Hi Luke. Still here. Well, actually, I'm back. I was overseas with work, and since then the academic term has started ... so you've not been forgotten, just displaced a little.
I'm looking forward to continuing the conversation with you, and to catching up with Michael's blog more generally, but it may take me a week or two to get to it. Thanks for your patience, and for the continued interest.
Post a Comment