Brooking No Debate: Scientism, Crowbars, and Bats

The late Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard used to describe religion and science as occupying “non-overlapping magisterial authority,” or what he called NOMA. That is, science and religion occupied different “domains,” or areas of life, in which each held “the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution.”

There were many problems with Gould’s approach, but at least a lack of respect for religion and religious people wasn’t one of them. Not so with some of today’s scientists.

The New York Times reported on a conference recently held in Costa Mesa, California, that turned into the secular materialist equivalent of a revival meeting.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg told attendees that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” According to Weinberg, “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

Another Nobel laureate, chemist Sir Harold Kroto, suggested that the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion be given to Richard Dawkins for his new book The God Delusion.

Continuing the theme, Carolyn Porco of the Space Science Institute called for teaching “our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty.”

In case you were in doubt about which worldview would inform this “catechesis,” she then added: “It is already so much more glorious and awesome—and even comforting—than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”

Attempts at a Gould-like détente between religion and science didn’t sit well with this crowd. A presentation by Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden on how to make evolution more acceptable to Christians was disrupted by Dawkins himself who called it “bad poetry.”

After a while, the rancor and stridency got to be too much for some of the attendees. One scientist called it a “den of vipers” where the only debate is “should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

Another, physicist Lawrence Krauss, chided them, saying “science does not make it impossible to believe in God . . . [and] we should recognize that fact . . . and stop being so pompous about it.”

Fat chance. What’s behind all of this animosity? It is a worldview known as “scientism,” the belief that there is no supernatural, only a material world. And it will not countenance any rivals. It is a “jealous god.”

As Weinberg’s comments illustrate, it regards any other belief system other than scientism as irrational and the enemy of progress. Given the chance, as in the former Soviet Union, it wants to eliminate its rivals. It is no respecter of pluralism.

But this really exposes the difference between the worldviews of these scientists and Christians. We welcome science; it’s the healthy exploration of God’s world. The greatest scientists in history have been Christians who believe science was possible only in a world that was orderly and created by God. We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon.

The naturalists, on the other hand, rule out even science that tends to show intelligence, because that might lead to a God. Now, who is narrow-minded?

Agreed.

The reason Genesis matters to me is that I do not agree that believing in the literal story is necessary for salvation. And I disagree strongly with those who insist that such literal belief is necessary, because that essentially tells millions of people that they needn't bother worrying about salvation, because they're never going to believe the 6 days of creation business.
I don't think they have to, either.
Jesus didn't demand people believe that.
So nobody else should either.

Jesus summarized the Old Testament: Love your neighbor as yourself, and love God above all.

Ok, so, that's the Old Testament. Jesus said that was all the Law and the Prophets, which is the authoritative parts of the OT to Jews (and he was talking to Jews).

So if we're going to go to the essence, let's just focus on Jesus. He summarized what came before in two sentences. So let's just take him at his word and not dwell on it, because when we dwell on it we find divisions that NEEDN'T divide us.

Let's start with Jesus and see what HE demanded.
HE demanded moral conduct, left right and center.
Now, PAUL seems to say "all ya gotta do is BELIEVE", but Jesus doesn't seem to say that at all. Perhaps the rounding off of doctrine would be "all ya gotta do is believe, but if you really believed you'd do all of these things Jesus said, so if you're not really doing those things, you don't really believe and you're in trouble."

Anyway, let's not fight anymore. I'm tired.

What do Catholics do? Love Jesus and have great gobs of charity dispensed all over the world. Jesus would approve.

What do the various flavors of Protestants do? Love Jesus and do good works. Jesus would approve.

That'll have to be good enough.

I don't have a problem with that.

I'm sure you don't. I'm also sure you've presented some teachings here that are not teachings of Christ or teachings of the Catholic Church or any sane Protestant denomination. If you go ahead and continue our conversation, which I would welcome, you will hear stuff like that again, so don't start thinking it's Catholic bashing.

Like I said, feel free to proceed.

The reason Genesis matters to me is that I do not agree that believing in the literal story is necessary for salvation.

I agree fully.

But the P&S folks thought THEY were telling the right story, too!

Matthew 16:11-12
11. How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12. Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Now, PAUL seems to say "all ya gotta do is BELIEVE", but Jesus doesn't seem to say that at all.

Oh, but He does!

KJVJohn 6:28:29
28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

What I did was leave aside Catholic tradition completely, for a time, and just do what Luther said: read the Bible.

I read the Bible as written, word-for-word.
I refused to allow any Catholic tradition to influence my views, but I also refused to allow any Protestant tradition to influence my views either.

I just read what it said, and considered the authority of was saying it.

And when I did that, I came to a different place from others.

When it comes to evolution, I just don't see in Genesis a coherent and internally consistent account of the origins of the world. And to the extent that there are a couple of facts that carry all the way through the story of Noah and to today, they conflict with the observable world.

To me, it's not a Catholic or Protestant thing.
Catholics (and Jews) largely ignore the issue of Genesis, because their tradition teaches them it's not a literal story. Some Protestants take it literally. When I read it take literally, WITHOUT the backdrop of Protestant traditions of interpretation, it falls apart for me.

It is true that I can't see any reason for me to substitute Protestant traditions that aren't in the Bible for Catholic traditions that aren't in the Bible. It is also true that I tend to cross-check Catholic traditions with the Jewish traditions, to see what in Catholicism is really Judaism brought over from the Apostles, who were all Jews. A lot of Catholicism - the priestly liturgical stuff that isn't fleshed out in the Bible - is very Jewish.

Catholic bashing doesn't bother me in the least, and what you said didn't leave a mark, so don't worry about it.

"28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

Yes, but what does this MEAN?
I don't read Jesus saying "All you gotta do is acknowledge I'm the son of God", not at all!
I see him saying, throughout the Gospels, essentially "These miracles I do prove I am who I say I am, and you need to believe I am who I say I am...and THEREFORE, BECAUSE you believe I am who I say I am, you need to DO what I say to DO, for example, not commit adultery, love God...etc.

I do see Jesus saying "You've gotta believe who I am."
I don't see him saying, at all, "And that's all you gotta do."

"It ain't all that HARD to do, Folks!"

Oh, but it IS hard!

Once you believe Jesus is the Son of God and has authority, there's a bunch of changes you need to make in your life, and they are not EASY changes, or comfortable changes, at all.

Start with sex. Plain old sexual fantasies are mostly sins, according to Jesus and Paul. Just THINKING about adultery is committing it, Jesus said.

And Jesus said "No divorce". THAT was so hard that Anglicanism was created in order to get away from that one rule, so the King could get a divorce from a woman when there was no "lewd conduct" on her part (which Jesus committed). It still is very hard.

Just THOSE things require changes of life and social structure, and major, continuous struggle with one's own impulses.

Paul believed in Jesus, but God didn't remove that thorn from his flesh, did he?

It IS hard. It's very hard. The Devil doesn't leave you alone because you believe in Jesus. If anything, he redoubles his assaults, to pull you back down in the mire.

Belief in Jesus is just the BEGINNING of the war.
And it's a brutal war against the greatest powers in this world, save one.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.