okieinexile
Well-Known Member
An infinite supply of snakes
By Bobby Neal Winters
I am a Christian, and I am a scientist of sorts, a mathematician to be exact. Some people have found that to be odd because they see an inherent conflict between science and religion. Science is seen as being rational, proceeding by careful method, and exactly correct, while religion is seen to be the opposite, that is to say irrational, proceeding from revelation, and—almost as an axiom—wrong.
As I live in Kansas, where our school board has been dealing with how the theory of evolution is to be taught in our public schools, I stand at the intersection of two busy streets. There are those who think that, being a Christian, I should support the Creationist viewpoint, and there are others who think that, as a scientist, I should dismiss the Bible as utter rubbish.
Since I have offered that set up, the attentive reader will discern that I intend to do neither. I believe that the theory of evolution should be taught for what it is, that is to say the best explanation science has to offer for how species arise, but I also believe that the Bible is a document that gives us a for better explanation of who we are as a species than any other extant piece of writing.
I am not one who sees science and religion to be inherently at odds with each other. They are not the opposites that I described in the first paragraph. One might even say they are similar enough that folks with alternately mistake them for each other.
It is my aim in this essay to state a Biblical case for what religion is about—at least in the case of Judeo-Christianity—and describe, within that context, why so many conflicts occur.
We begin in Genesis, for there is no better place. Man was expelled from the Garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Before that there was no religion. Man experienced the direct presence of God in the Garden, so there was no need for prayer. There were no intermediaries between God and Man, no priests, no prophets. Religion began with the first sacrifice which was made by God Himself as He killed animals to make clothing for Adam and Eve. This was necessary because Adam and Eve had been disobedient to God which put them out of harmony with nature, God’s creation. They knew they were naked and were ashamed.
Before the Fall, when Adam and Eve were in perfect harmony with God there was no shame and no need for clothing, but afterward something was needed to cover their nakedness. The separation from God had wounded their spirits, and the clothing provided a salve for the wound. This blood sacrifice was the first act of religion. It is important to note that the alienation is not cured by this sacrifice. Indeed, Man is at greater disharmony with nature because he requires the death of animals in order to have his shame covered. However, as Man’s nakedness was covered, the effects of the alienation upon him are reduced. He need not be naked; he need not be cold.
The ceremonial sacrifice was a reminder of the separation from harmony.
This practice continued with Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam, making offerings to God. In this much discussed story, Cain’s offering of “the fruits of the soil” is rejected, while Abel’s is accepted. In a fit of rage, Cain kills his brother.
It is not made explicit why Cain’s offering is rejected, though one might make the argument the reason was because it did not require the shedding of blood. The shedding of blood means death is required. As the offering is a repetition of the original sacrifice made by God and a reminder of Man’s disobedience through which death entered the world, and since Cain’s offering did not require death, it wasn’t really a sacrifice.
Cain did ultimately shed blood, but it was the blood of his brother. Far from offering it to God, he attempts to hide it.
In a discussion with a group of friends, it was pointed out to me that Cain’s punishment was unjust. God had never told him that killing a human was wrong, so Cain did not know that it was.
To this point, I would like to make a couple of comments, or, rather, ask a question and make a comment.
The question is: If Cain didn’t know it was wrong, then why did he attempt to hide it from God? It seems that he knew in spite of not being told.
The comment is that not knowing for sure that something is wrong until you do it is an accurate portrayal of reality. The thoughts anticipating an experience and the experience itself are vastly different things—ask any pair of lovers.
When Cain killed his brother, no human had ever died before. His action brought knowledge of how horrible an act murder is into the world. This was knowledge bought at the price of blood.
A study of Genesis to confirm the increasing alienation and of the Gospels to display Christ’s sacrifice on the cross as a bridging of that alienation, would take us far a field. I promised that I would discuss why there are so many conflicts of science with religion, so I need to say something of science.
One impetus for me to write this essay was the title article in the June 20-26 edition of The Washington Post National Weekly Edition entitled “Evolution of Our Species,” which was written by Joel Garreau.
There are a number of things within the article that could disturb thinking, moral beings whether they are Christian or not, religious or not. For instance Francis Fukuyama, a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, comments that if it weren’t for the Holocaust and the subsequent taboos on research, we could pay a lot of poor people in third world countries to take the risks that people in developed countries won’t and thereby speed up research. It bothers me that someone would even think about that.
However, it is not the purpose of this essay to provide an exhaustive critique of that article. Science brings us knowledge of the natural world, and some that knowledge allows us to manipulate the universe in ways which alienate us further from nature. Modern science is by no means unique here, as the Creation Narrative shows someone else had observed the phenomenon. “Evolution of Our Species” is a fresh source of examples of places where current research shows us such manipulation is possible.
To be specific, Garreau lists such things as connecting a 25-year-old man’s brain to a computer that controls a robotic hand, memory enhancing drugs, and drugs that enable humans to function for extended periods of time without sleep. It also lists the possibility of adding new chromosomes to the human genome. Instead of our current 46, we could have 47, 48, or more.
Each of these, though they might appear to be undiluted benefits to Man, also has a dark side, at least from a Christian perspective.
For instance, having a computer control a robotic hand has obvious applications in helping those with handicaps. Helping the lame to walk is an activity with which Christians have much sympathy. Christ made the lame to walk and told us to do the same. However, the article also mentions that the military hopes it would let pilots fly planes by using only their minds. While we certainly support our country’s defense, immediately finding such an application is somewhat at odds with the Christian ideal of “I will study war no more.”
The memory enhancing drugs are also attractive. Since Viagra gives us the ability to have sex in perpetuity, it would be nice to remember who we were having it with. However, the article mentions that students using these might add 200 points to their SAT scores. In a world where the needy are competing for merit based scholarships alongside the affluent, how, exactly, is this fair? In our capitalistic society, it is hard to imagine that all of the students would have access to such drugs, at least legal access.
But for me, particularly worrisome is the possibility of drugs that would enable a person to go for extended periods without sleep. These were developed by the Department of Defense for soldiers, but one might ask why they couldn’t be given to workers? An entrepreneur could have his employees work around the clock. Workers who didn’t have families to go home to could simply work all the time, thereby increasing the advantage in the workplace they already have.
To me, however, the most insidious of the possibilities offered in the article, is that of increasing the number of chromosomes in the human genome. I believe this could lead to the creation of a race of elite humans within the human race.
As I understand it, when the human sperm meets the human egg, the chromosomes in one pair up with the chromosomes in the other. If there are not corresponding pairs in egg and sperm, this cannot take place. Consequently, those with more chromosomes would be a group that could not interbreed with the rest of the population. This would, in effect, make them their own species. They would be a group walking among us, very likely children of affluence and power, whom one could not join simply by hard work. What would the effects of this speciation be?
To extrapolate problems arising from discoveries is the business of science fiction. My ponderings fall sort of those of science fiction, which themselves rarely match reality. However, let me say that it has been my experience that it is the problems we don’t see which cause the most difficulty. I do hope that you see the knowledge science gives us enables us to manipulate our environment and, as a consequence, produces that possibility that we can become even more alienated from nature and nature’s God. In that sense, every piece of scientific knowledge gained is like another bite from the Forbidden Fruit.
I said earlier that science and religion are enough alike that some alternately mistake one for the other. Being religious myself, I will first take a shot at my own side by saying that some of my brethren mistakenly believing they have found science in their religion. Here I will cite the controversy over the theory of evolution once again.
The creation story in the Book of Genesis is many things, but it is not a scientific account of creation. Yet there are those, not many to be sure, who would have us believe the Earth was created in six 24-hour days, based solely upon their interpretation of that text.
At the same time, there are those who place their faith in science. I mean this in the sense there are people who believe that, given any problem, science will produce a solution for it. While the methods of science are careful and exact, there is no reason to believe science will be able to solve all problems. This fits the definition of faith from the author of Hebrews “The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
There are those who hold the hope that science might find a way to inoculate us against death itself, thereby reversing the consequence of our first sin. This faith is bolstered by the way science has enabled us to extend life and soften the affects of aging.
Yet we can foresee problems that might occur as the number of elderly increase as a proportion of the population, more of our tax dollars spent on their care and fewer on education for the young. These are just the ones we can see now.
Our alienation from God, our loss of harmony with nature is so far progressed now that Eden isn’t even a point on the horizon. Given the accelerating progress of science, especially in those areas dealing with the secrets of human life itself, I fear that one day our children will look back upon the place we are at now and believe that it was Eden.
(Bobby Winters is a Lay Speaker in the United Methodist Church, as well as a professor of mathematics. You may contact him at bobby@okieinexile.com.)
By Bobby Neal Winters
I am a Christian, and I am a scientist of sorts, a mathematician to be exact. Some people have found that to be odd because they see an inherent conflict between science and religion. Science is seen as being rational, proceeding by careful method, and exactly correct, while religion is seen to be the opposite, that is to say irrational, proceeding from revelation, and—almost as an axiom—wrong.
As I live in Kansas, where our school board has been dealing with how the theory of evolution is to be taught in our public schools, I stand at the intersection of two busy streets. There are those who think that, being a Christian, I should support the Creationist viewpoint, and there are others who think that, as a scientist, I should dismiss the Bible as utter rubbish.
Since I have offered that set up, the attentive reader will discern that I intend to do neither. I believe that the theory of evolution should be taught for what it is, that is to say the best explanation science has to offer for how species arise, but I also believe that the Bible is a document that gives us a for better explanation of who we are as a species than any other extant piece of writing.
I am not one who sees science and religion to be inherently at odds with each other. They are not the opposites that I described in the first paragraph. One might even say they are similar enough that folks with alternately mistake them for each other.
It is my aim in this essay to state a Biblical case for what religion is about—at least in the case of Judeo-Christianity—and describe, within that context, why so many conflicts occur.
We begin in Genesis, for there is no better place. Man was expelled from the Garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Before that there was no religion. Man experienced the direct presence of God in the Garden, so there was no need for prayer. There were no intermediaries between God and Man, no priests, no prophets. Religion began with the first sacrifice which was made by God Himself as He killed animals to make clothing for Adam and Eve. This was necessary because Adam and Eve had been disobedient to God which put them out of harmony with nature, God’s creation. They knew they were naked and were ashamed.
Before the Fall, when Adam and Eve were in perfect harmony with God there was no shame and no need for clothing, but afterward something was needed to cover their nakedness. The separation from God had wounded their spirits, and the clothing provided a salve for the wound. This blood sacrifice was the first act of religion. It is important to note that the alienation is not cured by this sacrifice. Indeed, Man is at greater disharmony with nature because he requires the death of animals in order to have his shame covered. However, as Man’s nakedness was covered, the effects of the alienation upon him are reduced. He need not be naked; he need not be cold.
The ceremonial sacrifice was a reminder of the separation from harmony.
This practice continued with Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam, making offerings to God. In this much discussed story, Cain’s offering of “the fruits of the soil” is rejected, while Abel’s is accepted. In a fit of rage, Cain kills his brother.
It is not made explicit why Cain’s offering is rejected, though one might make the argument the reason was because it did not require the shedding of blood. The shedding of blood means death is required. As the offering is a repetition of the original sacrifice made by God and a reminder of Man’s disobedience through which death entered the world, and since Cain’s offering did not require death, it wasn’t really a sacrifice.
Cain did ultimately shed blood, but it was the blood of his brother. Far from offering it to God, he attempts to hide it.
In a discussion with a group of friends, it was pointed out to me that Cain’s punishment was unjust. God had never told him that killing a human was wrong, so Cain did not know that it was.
To this point, I would like to make a couple of comments, or, rather, ask a question and make a comment.
The question is: If Cain didn’t know it was wrong, then why did he attempt to hide it from God? It seems that he knew in spite of not being told.
The comment is that not knowing for sure that something is wrong until you do it is an accurate portrayal of reality. The thoughts anticipating an experience and the experience itself are vastly different things—ask any pair of lovers.
When Cain killed his brother, no human had ever died before. His action brought knowledge of how horrible an act murder is into the world. This was knowledge bought at the price of blood.
A study of Genesis to confirm the increasing alienation and of the Gospels to display Christ’s sacrifice on the cross as a bridging of that alienation, would take us far a field. I promised that I would discuss why there are so many conflicts of science with religion, so I need to say something of science.
One impetus for me to write this essay was the title article in the June 20-26 edition of The Washington Post National Weekly Edition entitled “Evolution of Our Species,” which was written by Joel Garreau.
There are a number of things within the article that could disturb thinking, moral beings whether they are Christian or not, religious or not. For instance Francis Fukuyama, a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, comments that if it weren’t for the Holocaust and the subsequent taboos on research, we could pay a lot of poor people in third world countries to take the risks that people in developed countries won’t and thereby speed up research. It bothers me that someone would even think about that.
However, it is not the purpose of this essay to provide an exhaustive critique of that article. Science brings us knowledge of the natural world, and some that knowledge allows us to manipulate the universe in ways which alienate us further from nature. Modern science is by no means unique here, as the Creation Narrative shows someone else had observed the phenomenon. “Evolution of Our Species” is a fresh source of examples of places where current research shows us such manipulation is possible.
To be specific, Garreau lists such things as connecting a 25-year-old man’s brain to a computer that controls a robotic hand, memory enhancing drugs, and drugs that enable humans to function for extended periods of time without sleep. It also lists the possibility of adding new chromosomes to the human genome. Instead of our current 46, we could have 47, 48, or more.
Each of these, though they might appear to be undiluted benefits to Man, also has a dark side, at least from a Christian perspective.
For instance, having a computer control a robotic hand has obvious applications in helping those with handicaps. Helping the lame to walk is an activity with which Christians have much sympathy. Christ made the lame to walk and told us to do the same. However, the article also mentions that the military hopes it would let pilots fly planes by using only their minds. While we certainly support our country’s defense, immediately finding such an application is somewhat at odds with the Christian ideal of “I will study war no more.”
The memory enhancing drugs are also attractive. Since Viagra gives us the ability to have sex in perpetuity, it would be nice to remember who we were having it with. However, the article mentions that students using these might add 200 points to their SAT scores. In a world where the needy are competing for merit based scholarships alongside the affluent, how, exactly, is this fair? In our capitalistic society, it is hard to imagine that all of the students would have access to such drugs, at least legal access.
But for me, particularly worrisome is the possibility of drugs that would enable a person to go for extended periods without sleep. These were developed by the Department of Defense for soldiers, but one might ask why they couldn’t be given to workers? An entrepreneur could have his employees work around the clock. Workers who didn’t have families to go home to could simply work all the time, thereby increasing the advantage in the workplace they already have.
To me, however, the most insidious of the possibilities offered in the article, is that of increasing the number of chromosomes in the human genome. I believe this could lead to the creation of a race of elite humans within the human race.
As I understand it, when the human sperm meets the human egg, the chromosomes in one pair up with the chromosomes in the other. If there are not corresponding pairs in egg and sperm, this cannot take place. Consequently, those with more chromosomes would be a group that could not interbreed with the rest of the population. This would, in effect, make them their own species. They would be a group walking among us, very likely children of affluence and power, whom one could not join simply by hard work. What would the effects of this speciation be?
To extrapolate problems arising from discoveries is the business of science fiction. My ponderings fall sort of those of science fiction, which themselves rarely match reality. However, let me say that it has been my experience that it is the problems we don’t see which cause the most difficulty. I do hope that you see the knowledge science gives us enables us to manipulate our environment and, as a consequence, produces that possibility that we can become even more alienated from nature and nature’s God. In that sense, every piece of scientific knowledge gained is like another bite from the Forbidden Fruit.
I said earlier that science and religion are enough alike that some alternately mistake one for the other. Being religious myself, I will first take a shot at my own side by saying that some of my brethren mistakenly believing they have found science in their religion. Here I will cite the controversy over the theory of evolution once again.
The creation story in the Book of Genesis is many things, but it is not a scientific account of creation. Yet there are those, not many to be sure, who would have us believe the Earth was created in six 24-hour days, based solely upon their interpretation of that text.
At the same time, there are those who place their faith in science. I mean this in the sense there are people who believe that, given any problem, science will produce a solution for it. While the methods of science are careful and exact, there is no reason to believe science will be able to solve all problems. This fits the definition of faith from the author of Hebrews “The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
There are those who hold the hope that science might find a way to inoculate us against death itself, thereby reversing the consequence of our first sin. This faith is bolstered by the way science has enabled us to extend life and soften the affects of aging.
Yet we can foresee problems that might occur as the number of elderly increase as a proportion of the population, more of our tax dollars spent on their care and fewer on education for the young. These are just the ones we can see now.
Our alienation from God, our loss of harmony with nature is so far progressed now that Eden isn’t even a point on the horizon. Given the accelerating progress of science, especially in those areas dealing with the secrets of human life itself, I fear that one day our children will look back upon the place we are at now and believe that it was Eden.
(Bobby Winters is a Lay Speaker in the United Methodist Church, as well as a professor of mathematics. You may contact him at bobby@okieinexile.com.)