Musings Inspired by “The God Delusion” – part 3

This post will cover the remainder of the book – from chapter 5 through chapter 10.

I will be honest and say that this is where the book was difficult for me to read. (It is hard to read a book when you want to throw it or yell at it.) There are so many things that I could discuss and dissect in this section, and to do so would take a book of my own. I think I can summarize my thoughts on these chapters by saying that:

1. Dawkins has knowledge of the Bible, but no understanding of it. Sadly, his apparent knowledge of Scripture probably is beyond most Americans who profess to be Christians.
   
2. All of the things that Dawkins points to as "bad" about religion are actually sins that Christianity and the Bible would condemn.
   
3. While Dawkins says he is not a fundamentalist on evolution and natural selection, he is certainly a fundamentalist when it comes to naturalism. He simply cannot entertain the notion of something beyond the physical, so no matter what evidence would be presented to him, it would not be sufficient if it were supernatural in nature.
   
4. I agree with Dawkins on many points than I expected to (ie – condemning sin in the world or mental abuse of children), but we don't agree on what should be done about it or its ultimate cause.
   

While the hypothesis that religion and morality are by-products of some trait passed down via natural selection could be viewed as a possibility, it does not seem well-supported to me. This book at least had the educational purpose of introducing me to these ideas, and also the existence of evolutionary psychology.

So, I have completed the book and can say that I am glad that I read it. If you have a question about the book, please feel free to ask.

Musings Inspired by “The God Delusion” – part 2

This post will focus on Chapters 3 – Arguments for God's Existence and 4 – Why There Almost Certainly is No God.

Probability and statistics are a major theme of Dawkins discussion, especially in Chapter 4. He says in multiple places that according to the laws of probability that simple things are more probable to come into existence than complex things. He then argues that a God capable of designing and upholding the universe must be complex. I would not disagree with this assumption, as I don't think I would try to argue that God was simple. Because of this complexity, Dawkins declares the likelihood of this type of complex God is terribly unlikely. But as you read, you see that Dawkins mind is firmly in the natural world. He cannot fathom something that does not follow 'natural laws' of chemistry, biology and physics. If we asserted that the God of the Bible were within that realm, this argument might hold water. But all of the 'things' that Dawkins uses to measure the existence of God are those useful in the natural world only.

In some places, Dawkins seems to define what is true by popular opinion. He spends a good bit of time with statistics on the beliefs of scientists and 'less educated', and then uses the fact that the inverse relationship between education and religious belief as a 'proof' that God does not exist. This also leads him to continue to question statements and beliefs of other scientists. He did this with Gould in Chapter 2, saying that surely he really didn't mean what he wrote. He continues this line of thought by questioning whether certain scientists in history were actually Christian. He has the audacity to say that perhaps these men were 'closet atheists' and just didn't know that they could choose to not believe in God.

Another recurring theme for Dawkins is that a universe with a personal Creator would be a very different universe than one without one. He then says that "our sense of goodness would be the way it is with a God and without a God." These 2 statements seem contradictory to me. Why would our sense of goodness be the same in a completely different universe? And how can you compare these 2 types of universe when you only live in one of them? How do you KNOW which you find yourself in?
The biggest thing that keeps coming into my mind as I contemplate Dawkins arguments is his narrow view of the theoretical. Philosophers of science point out that there are an infinite number of theories that are possible to explain any possible natural phenomena.

I often show this photograph to my class and ask the question "What happened right before this picture was taken?" As you might imagine, there are lots of ideas and many of them seem possible and reasonable. The job of science is to try to eliminate which 'theories' could be correct and which are certainly not correct. And just because you eliminate all of the possibilities on your original list, that does not mean there is not another possible theory that you have not yet thought of and tested. Even then, you have not "proven" your theory – you have either supported the theory or not. It is clear that Dawkins believes there are only 2 options out there for the existence of everything – Darwinism by means of natural selection (he even stretches this to the realm of physics in one example) and a special creation by God. I would have expected Dawkins to be a little more versed in the philosophy of science, because he is totally ignoring other possibilities, not to mention all of the possibilities of the "how" within these 2 theories. Of course the beginning of everything or any natural phenomena (the cause of cancer, the transportation of steroids in the body, etc.) have an answer and it is possible the accurate and real answer is one that has not been thought of yet.

After finishing the last paragraph, I think of a statement I have read and heard from Christians that say that belief in God/ creationism/ etc. leads to intellectual laziness. I think this is a load of trash! A Biblical view of man's purpose in the world is that of steward of creation. This view is easy to fit in a career in the sciences, which is the study of the natural world/ God's creation. How in the world is it consistent with being a good and faithful steward to not seek to learn anything and everything you can about your subject?? Any Christian who would hold this view would either not take God's call on their vocation seriously or would not understand the Bible's teaching on the subject on what we are to be about until His return. This does seem in line with a "God of the Gaps" idea, which was discussed in this section of the book. Here I find another instance where I agree with Dawkins. I agree with both Dawkins and Dietrich Bonhoffer on this point. Holding to such a view might lead to scientific laziness, because if the only place we see God in the natural world is in those things we don't understand, God will disappear when we explain everything.

Taking this idea a bit further, I want to finish this post by sharing a paragraph from Dawkins book that I thought was very interesting. "I am continually astonished by those theists who, far from having their consciousness raised in the way that I propose, seem to rejoice in natural selection as "God's way of achieving his creation". They note that evolution by natural selection would be a very easy and neat way to achieve a world full of life. God wouldn't need to do anything at all! Peter Atkins…takes this line of thoughts to a sensibly godless conclusion when he postulates a hypothetically lazy God who tries to get away with as little as possible in order to make a universe containing life. Atkins's lazy God is even lazier than the deist God of the 18^th century Enlightenment: deus otiosus – literally God at leisure, unoccupied, unemployed, superfluous, useless. Step by step, Atkins success in reducing the amount of work the lazy God has to do until he finally ends up doing mothering at all: high might as well not bother to exist." (pg. 118) Morris and Petcher's book, Science and Grace, does a wonderful job of responding Biblically to the idea of a 'lazy' God by looking at God's relationship to His physical creation. I would highly recommend the book to anyone!

Musings Inspired by Dawkins' "The God Delusion" - Part 1

I started reading Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion today.  It has been on my 'to-read' list for a couple of years now.  I have now completed 3 chapters and have decided that I will blog on my thoughts, especially those that are interesting to me.  This post will focus on my thoughts concerning the first 2 chapters of the book.

Chapter 2 of the book is entitled "The God Hypothesis" and so far Dawkins has talked about polytheism, monotheism, and agnosticism.  He has clearly said that he, as an atheist, ascribes to the only reality is that which is physical.  He states clearly that there is no super-natural being (God) or souls.  He then spends time discussing 'probability' of the existence of a 'God' and lamenting over the fact that scientists are not considered a proper authority for disproving the existence of such a 'God'.  This chapter has much information in it, such as definitions and discussion of certain views.  However, I had to go back through after reading it the first time and try to figure out the 'point' or 'direction' of the chapter.  Even then, I did not find how the content of the chapter really went along with the title of the chapter.

I see a glaring problem with Dawkins main line of thought.  A current definiton of science is simply the study of "natural causes for natural phenomena".  The existence of 'God', who by Dawkins own definition, is a super-natural being would fall completely outside the realm of science.  Science is not equipped to answer such questions, yet Dawkins is spending a lot of time 'mushing' the 2 together.  In addition, Dawkins works to use the Scientific Method as the means by which to study/ investigate and ultimately disprove/ show a miniscule probability for the existence of 'God'.

In the Foreward of the book, Dawkins has already expressed his desire that all readers of his book would convert to atheism after its completion.  From other readings and interviews with Dawkins, it is clear that he believes that the only way to know anything is through science (which is the way we have chosen to learn about the physical world, which is Dawkins view, is all that exists).  So it should not be surprising that this is the vein in which he approaches this subject.  However, it seems that the basis of this argument is NOT sound, therefore the stability of the finished argument is in question.

I have found an area that I tend to agree with Dawkins on (I'm not surprised that there are some, although we part ways rather quickly).  He spends some time discussing NOMA - Non-Overlapping Magisteria.  He does not agree with Stephen Jay Gould's assertion that scientists cannot "affirm or deny" the existence or nature of God.  He spends a few pages talking about how religion and science DO overlap, and why scientists should be able to investigate the existence of God by the Scientific Method in theory - he does admit it would be difficult to do this in practice.  Dawkins might agree with the authors Morris and Petcher of Science and Grace who describe what they call a "peace treaty" between science and faith, that seems nearly identical to NOMA.   This is where the disagreements would begin - I would agree with Morris and Petcher that holding to NOMA may lead to a view inconsistent with Scripture (ie - a 'clock-maker God' similar to one held by a deist).  Dawkins can't decide if Gould really thinks NOMA is the appropriate way to think or if he was just being nice to those he did not agree with.  He wastes no time putting forth the reasons why he believes this is a silly argument, one of which is that the only reason NOMA exists is because there is no evidence to support religious belief. 

Turning to my own thoughts stemming from this reading, I will say that I struggle with my thoughts on the current methodological naturalism.  I have had discussions with several biologists that believe it is absolutely necessary for good science.  But I agree with Blaise Pascal's assertion that reason's last step is the acknowledgement that there are an infinite number of possibilities beyond it.  Regardless, I believe that there must be consistency in how we treat the super-natural within science.  While most scientists will say that science is "natural causes for natural phenomena", they operate in a way that seems to agree more with Richard Dawkins (who clearly is not holding to this idea).  This is one of those areas that I need more time to read and think about my exact view on this issue.

Going forward, I'll be interested to see what Dawkins will accept as 'evidence' as the book progresses.  He does not believe in the existence of anything but the natural world, and has already discounted certain historical writings with no or few reasons why.  The next 2 chapters are supposed to give the reasons for belief and those to not believe (all in the name of disproving the existence of 'God').  As I continue to read, I will post more.  Stay tuned if you are interested.....

Know Your Enemy

I often wish that I did not love my job so much. It is summer and, for the life of me, I CANNOT turn my brain off to stop thinking about my Biology courses in the fall. I am anxious to implement changes to improve student learning, and also, student satisfaction with the course. When looking at the past couple of semesters and remembering the sometimes hateful comments from students on End of Course evaluations, it is very easy to think of the students as the enemy. Since I struggle with being a people-pleaser, this can turn from being helpful into a sinful obsession. But my students are not the enemy – not even close. So I need to refocus my thoughts on the real enemy and what I can do to make Biology for Non-Majors and better experience for all involved (this includes myself).

• Enemy #1: Fear of a new way of learning from students. Even though I utilize Team-Based Learning as my pedagogical model, this does not eliminate using some amount of lecture in the course. I have experimented with different approaches different semesters, and am planning to intentional and clearly defined lecture. I don't think I will end up talking anymore in class, but I will now show the *magical* powerpoints on important and challenging concepts, rather than just answering questions and (gasp) writing on the board. I have also gotten rid of some case studies and changed the in-class activities to hands-on drawing, building of models and more. In all honesty, this approach will have more of a 'building' component of student knowledge as we work through each unit. Hopefully, Enemy #1 will be lessened as students see a mixture of class activities which address multiple learning styles within the class.
  
• Enemy #2: Apathy on the part of students. To combat these attitudes, I will be showing a Discovery Channel video about a current event concept related to the unit we are studying. This will take up about 10 minutes of class time, but if it catches the interest of just 1 student, it will be worth it. I am also changing the major individual assignment from a scary research paper to posting in our forums about a current event article that I have chosen. I hope that by making the connections to the real world in more than one venue, these non-majors will see the usefulness of studying biology to their own lives.
  
• Enemy #3: Fear of saying or doing the wrong thing with my students. This enemy rears its ugly head in many scenarios. The area that is most on my mind is my never-ending struggle/ various ideas on how to best teach and approach the questions of origins and evolution with my students. It is very important to me (and to SWU) that we teach students to think from a Biblical worldview. My latest idea consisted of giving teams a table with information about various views and then asking them to decide which views may be held by someone with a Christian worldview. But now I don't know if I like this idea. It seems harmless and easy enough to do this, but I don't know if I can complete this activity in a way that would work in a single class period (which is all the time I can allot for the activity). I have been reading and thinking and praying and discussing with others these ideas in a very intentional way for the past 6 years, and I don't think I could complete this activity in a satisfactory manner. I approach this topic by emphasizing the need for humility and the effect of one's worldview. I also confess my own journey to best understand all of the scientific and theological issues connected to the discussion. No – I don't believe that one's views on this topic define whether you are a Christian or not, but I do think that a high regard for Scripture, its inerrancy and authority exclude some views of origins of life and origins of man (this could be the topic of another blog, but not now). The only weapon again Enemy #3 is continuing and thoughtful preparation for each class. Unfortunately, my perfectionistic tendencies leave me often feeling like I have not done a great job and have done the wrong thing. However, I keep reading and thinking and working through these questions to be able to do better the next time. Another "weapon" in this area is prayer – that God would give me the words and thoughts for the particular students sitting in that classroom. I need to remember that all students are different and need to hear different things from me to different topics. I will never have the *PERFECT* thing to say to explain any topic.
  
• Enemy #4: Forgetting that the students (and their evaluations) are not the enemy. Part of the reason I love teaching is getting to know and interact with my students. Viewing them as the enemy takes away this joyful part of the job. I do my best work as a teacher when I am invested in the students. I must always remember that even though they are sinners just like me, they are made in the image of God. He loves them and me – He brought them to my class for a reason – He expects me to pray for, care for, and disciple them to the best of my ability in the area of biology and faith.
  

I often tell my students that all of life is sacred – learning biology (the study of God's living creation) – is not a secular pursuit. Remembering my ultimate goal – to glorify God as I teach my younger brothers and sisters in Christ about His Creation – makes my job exciting and meaningful to me. Getting these ideas down on "paper" will hopefully allow my mind to rest and recharge for the next few weeks – August will be here before you know it!

Amelia Island Vacation 2011

The past week has been spent in one of my favorite places in the whole world with my favorite people in the whole world.

For the past 7 days, we have been off the mainland of the United States on Amelia Island. Eric & I visited 12 years ago for our 2^nd wedding anniversary and for the past 4 years, we have taken our children there for our annual family vacation. We know the locations of all the good restaurants, the places we like to shop, and where to get ice cream for dessert every night.

Amelia Island is not commercialized and the sea life is evident. We found 4 sea turtle nests in the area of the beach where we were staying.   Sadly, we even saw a dead sea turtle on the beach, along with 41 jelly fish (these were spread over a 1.5 mile area of the beach).

One of my very favorite things to do is read and sit on the beach.  So doing them at the same time is nearly heaven on earth.  Here are the 7 books that I finished reading while at the beach - I admit, I started Austen's Persuasion the day before we left and I did start another book that I got about halfway finished before we got home (which is not pictured because I have not finished it).  Still, 7.5 books in 8 days is pretty good and a new record for me.

We were lucky to see a Nuclear Submarine heading into port/ base at Kingsland, Georgia. You can't see all of the other boats and helicopter escorting it up the St. Marys River. It was an awesome site that Eric and I enjoyed. We tried to explain to the kids how special and rare it was to see this, but I don't think they believed us.

Here are the "Annual" photo ops on Amelia Island – one at the big anchor by one of our favorite restaurants, another with Peg Leg downtown (across the street from the big anchor), and the last showing off our skills as hockey, I mean, mini golf players.

This was our view this morning as we walked to the ocean. I always love watching the pelicans dive – you can see two in this picture. Yes, it is the black blobs right above the water.

And here are my beach bum children. They humor me by telling the beach, the island, Florida, and Georgia goodbye as we drive home. They wish (just like we do) that we could just buy a beach house on Amelia Island and maybe even live there. So here are to this year's lovely memories and yes, we are already looking forward to next year when we will leave the mainland for another week and enjoy the island.