I’m not sure that I could successfully explain anything to Tom—because I’m totally baffled as to why he thought it necessary to state that an atheist’s appreciation of beauty in nature is somehow dishonest and incoherent. I read that section of the essay several times in hopes of figuring out where that came from. It reminded me of a lot of ENV essays which seem unnecessarily driven to cast everything in terms of what I will paraphrase as: We are the good guys. Those who disagree with us are the bad guys.
@NLENTS, I suppose if I had a chance to sit down and converse with Mr. Gilson, I would explain that the beauty of nature is a great topic on which everyone (e.g., both theists and non-theists) can enjoy a shared experience. Why ruin it? It is common ground that can unite us as fellow human beings rather than divide us. Not everything has to be about conflict. I’m tired of constant conflict. It is one of the main reasons why I find this election season so depressing.
Obviously, I appreciate the many differences between ENV about Peaceful Science. When I am asked to describe PS to inquirers, I tell them that the Peaceful Science forum is a place where people share in common a fascination with science and better understanding the views of others. We like investigating how this universe operates and learning from those who specialize in all sorts of amazing fields of study. Disagreements are certainly part of our forum discussions but conflict per se is not our goal. Peace, education, common ground, and understanding our differences motivates our best selves.
The conflict-driven themes of ENV remind me of my experiences in some fundamentalist communities in the 1970’s. There was a constant “us versus them” mentality in some venues. I recall a Sunday in 1979 when I was a guest speaker in an IFCA church (which officially stands for Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America.) Over Sunday dinner the church’s pastor joked about the tendency of some fundamentalist groups to always be fighting about something, such as the debate at that time about first-degree separationism versus second-degree separationism. (There was a recurring conflict in many IFCA churches at that time about whether to disfellowship and shun not just those who were guilty of sin X or mistakenly-held wrong-doctrine Y—but also those who refused to disfellowship and shun those regrettable aforementioned rogues.) My host joked, “Some probably think that I should not only condemn the use of guitars in church but also have nothing to do with the pastors of churches who dare fellowship with pastors who allow guitars in their services!” And then he added, “You know what IFCA stands for, right? It means I Fight Christians Anywhere.”
ENV seems conflict-driven in ways similar to political fund-raising newsletters. People donate more if they are told that there is a war underway, a constant conflict of high-stakes and utter gravity which must be fought bitterly to the death. Now. With ENV one gets the impression that every article must remind readers of the good-guys versus bad-guys conflict. And if there’s an opportunity for yet another dig against atheists, that’s all the better.
I’m tired of that mentality. That’s what I would tell Tom Gilson.
Yeah if there was one recurring bad idea I would like to see religious people disabuse themselves of, it’s this idea that things only can hold value, meaning, or beauty, through having been created by God, and that uncreated things that owe to “blind or random” physical processes can’t hold any meaning, beauty, or value to human beings. It just doesn’t follow.
Right, that is certainly an appropriate caution in my view, and a more direct way of getting at something I was trying to say. If we Christians just laser focus our arguments and view of the world onto an apologetic or an “atheist defeater” then the more likely outcome is only an impoverished view of God, humanity, and the world.
Done well, I do believe the Christian framework to be more expansive because I don’t think it so much contradicts the non-believer’s view but rather more often adds to it. I’d like to think, despite there being ample evidence to the contrary throughout the Internet, that when we talk about things like love and beauty that Christians don’t so much have a different view of those things, but rather a fuller view. The non-believer may think that fuller view unwarranted or unnecessary, but I worry about “distinct”. What do you think @sfmatheson?
That’s a very good question, that I’ve wondered about often (as have other Christians I know). I wonder if it doesn’t have something to do with love being more appropriately described as a relationship of choice. A robot doesn’t so much “love” as obey commands. I teach college students for a living, often times I get some version of “why don’t you just tell me the answer!?!” from exasperated students who just want to get the grade and move on. My response is usually “well, if I did that you wouldn’t learn it yourself”. Maybe it’s similar.
For many, including you I gather, the addition of a god is indeed a net addition to life, and it is completely reasonable to then say that you experience things “beyond” what I “will see” as an atheist. I don’t mind at all that believers see their view that way. I’m just not convinced that there’s a net “gain,” and the behavior of many in this forum is ample illustration of that. I can’t bring myself to believe that a person who is compelled to deny another’s basic humanity, to erase that person’s dignity, while stating calmly that this is required by their Christianity, is a person whose experience has been expanded by theism. I can’t see how to believe that a person who discredits science without even exploring it, based on their particular religious commitments, can be described other than “impoverished” intellectually. One can argue that in principle the addition of “god” is an addition, but the world in 2020, and especially in America, reveals Christianity to be a devastatingly negative force in the world in general and in the lives of tens of millions of its adherents.
Let me just say, I hear you. I don’t know your story, but I also know that I don’t need to know all the details to recognize some of the things you’re talking about. I think Christians, like most cultures, are pretty insular and don’t necessarily think as much about how what they say and do affect those outside the walls. I work and live in a very Evangelical context. Inside the walls there is a lot of love, compassion, forgiveness, etc. but you certainly wouldn’t know it by what we see on TV or the Internet.
I think many Christians do need to work on how they understand basic humanity, dignity, worth of the “other”. I think they do need to work on integrating their faith and science in a way that is healthy and true to both, not in a “cheap” or shallow way. I think we all could use a better grounding in those (these are broadly human problems) but I do hear your concern/frustration/anger. I think Peaceful Science is working in this area in meaningful ways.
For me PS and GAE has sparked an interest in human origins and the “what does it mean to be human?” question. It’s led to getting groups of faculty and staff at an Evangelical university together to talk about human origins in a much more robust way than they’ve previously considered. It’s been running a student study group for “chapel credit” that discussed David Reich’s work, amongst other things. I think it’s a good cause, I’m glad you are here. My hope is that along the way, perhaps we can improve your opinion of the role of Christianity in American society. Perhaps …
I don’t read this as criticizing ID. I read this as criticizing friends like @swamidass who believe in evolution and a creator. You’re invoking an assumption of evolution to criticize ID. It’s circular thinking. I read it as you’re telling anyone who believes in God and evolutionary origins they can’t think God created with purpose for us to find beauty in. I actually agree with that if that’s what you intended.
Acts 14
“Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”
I’ve also heard a Christian philosopher say that perhaps the best universe is the one in which more of God’s attributes can be shown: His mercy, grace, and justice in the case of a world in which sin was allowed to happen. That’s one answer. It’s not the only answer. And we don’t and can’t really fully know the ways of God.
I also agree that the culture-war mentality is not a good one, and I don’t always like the tone of ENV articles. But it’s not just ENV that sometimes promotes that mentality. It’s not as if atheists, TE/ECs, etc. are completely free of blame on that score. Generally speaking, extreme and unfair positions tend to generate extreme and unfair positions on the opposite side.
This is true, of course, not only in discussions about origins but in all areas of life, most obviously in American politics. Does anyone remember the show Crossfire? I used to occasionally watch it, and for all I know it may still be on. But it was a disgusting example of American political discourse at its worst, with the participants on both sides doubling down on their most unreasonable positions, and no effort to synthesize what might be true on each of the two sides. I remember the day when Jon Stewart the comedian came on the show and dressed both sides down for their Neanderthal behavior. It was a well-deserved rebuke.
Agreed, with the caveat that the “inflexible dogma” doesn’t always come from the corner of “religion”; sometimes it comes from those who claim to be speaking for “science.”
Then that’s not Christian, as it is a direct violation of the teachings of Christ. Tribalism should be the antithesis of Christianity, not the focus of it.
If what you believe is not well supported by evidence and you push it as truth, then expect it to be harshly criticized sometimes, but its not bullying.
Well, keep in mind that the essay gives no space to the notion that the color changes of leaf senescence have function and purpose to the plants themselves. Tom is dismissive of of “what chemists would tell us” and what “evolutionists would say,” even though there is a great deal of rigorous science that has been done studying this fascinating and important topic. He’s entirely dismissive of all of the science of this, and remember we’re not talking about the resurrection or the parting of the Red Sea. This is an entirely natural phenomenon and it rests wholly within the realm and prerogative of science. It’s not unreasonable to conclude from the essay that Tom believes the whole point of leaf senescence is to give (a small number of) humans a nice time on their nature walks (a few weeks of the year). C’mon now.
Anyone can just make something up. I’d be more interested in knowing how you know that the answers your religion gives you on such a question really are coming from God.
.