One of the main themes of SoulLaboratory.com is that science is not the universal system of truth some would have us believe. While science is, to paraphrase renowned scientist and outspoken Christian Francis Collins, the best system for deriving truth about the physical world that we have, it is not without limits. In previous posts I outlined the philosophy of the objective/subjective divide, which limits science to phenomenon observable by two or more people. I have also described the practical problems science has with observing and explaining rare physical phenomenon like raining frogs, or forming testable hypotheses about past events like extreme physical miracles. And those are just the limits I’ve gotten around to describing. Others limits, such as our inability to observe events before or outside the physical universe, or determine the truth of simple statements like “all ravens are black,” are just as important. In summary, there are many kinds of truths and science can’t address them all, and some it can’t address well. This is the end of science, beyond which there is “space” for something else, as alluded to in the tagline for SoulLaboratory.com.
Among the most important kinds of truth are those that are relevant to our personal lives. Questions such as why am I here? and what is the purpose of my life? are forever beyond the domain of science because they relate to our personal, subjective experience, as evidenced by the use of the first person personal pronouns “I” and “my.” Related questions, such as why are we here, or what is the purpose of our lives are fundamentally different, and maybe answerable by science. While those answers are enlightening, and may serve as a roadmap for personal growth, they may or may not be specific enough to guide us in the way that we need. So we are all left with the task of finding some way or system to help us make sense of our own personal experience. Spirituality is one such system, although not the only one for sure, and, by way of example, I would like to describe to you the way that spirituality guides my life and my science.
Continue reading »
Another of my favorite Huffington Post Religion Bloggers has posted again. William Grassie wrote a piece called “Redacting the Bible: A Case Study in Historical Criticism.” I’m a critic of Biblical analysis of the type offered by Mr. Grassie, but he’s not a hater, so we can read his work and discuss it freely. You can also read my comment on his post. I’ll reproduce it for your convenience, but please visit the link to show you care!
Here’s a few points to remember when reading posts about “how science understands sacred scripture:”
1. All biblical events are in the past, and don’t repeat in the present. Thus, they can’t be investigated with the same rigor as, say, the Higgs Boson, which can be manipulated and measured in the present for the purposes of hypothesis testing. Calling this “science” is questionable. “History” is a better description.2. All of the methods used handwriting analysis, carbon dating, etc. establish, latest possible dates because they apply to copies, not originals. Inferences are therefore not possible about the authored originals.
3. The documents themselves are a vast library of reference about the historical figures. Analysis of the documents’ histories tends to be generalized to the historical figure – without justification. Showing that a library is constructed with an agenda doesn’t prove the books within are fiction, although they very well could be.
The Israelites, fleeing Pharaoh’s oppression, are trapped between the Red Sea and the advancing armies of the indecisive king of Egypt. Moses raises his staff, inscribed with the names of God, and when Nahum, certain about the Creator’s mercy, wades in to the sea until water flows into his nose, the sea splits, leaving a path of dry land. The Zohar tells us that this miracle was beyond reason, yet it was the nature of the sea from creation to split at that moment.
My point in retelling this most famous story is to illustrate a kind of thorn in the paw of some lions of science. There are scientists out there with most spiritual views about the unity and majesty of creation, and who may concede on that basis that there is a god, if not a personal or transcendent one. Yet confronted with miracle stories, they balk, and reject as superstition the foundation stories of Monotheism. The problem for some is the recourse in explanation to the supernatural. As long as the world is ordered according to natural law, they may entertain the notion of a god who created a universe but that otherwise doesn’t intervene in our affairs. According to such Deists, let alone atheistic antagonists to religion, supernatural means anti-scientific, and thus unreasonable. In this article I’ll examine this claim, and whether science in general can either prove or disprove miracles’ existence.
Continue reading »
On the Web: “Evolution Weekend…”
Read Michael Zimmerman’s latest post on Huffington Post Religion, describing Evolution Weekend and the nature of his critics.
I’m a scientific consultant for Michael’s Clergy Letter Project, which recruits members of the religious communities to speak on behalf of the teaching of evolution in science classes. Michael is a tireless worker on behalf of sanity, and I would like you all to read his post and support his effort. I also posted a brief comment in support of his post.