I will have my query.

I once heard an anecdote of the de-christianization of society that went thus.  At the time of its religious founding, Harvard University’s seal depicted two open books and one closed – signifying the branches of human knowledge (Humanities and Sciences, I presume) and the concealed Divine knowledge.  At some point, a little-noted milestone in the inexorable march of secularity, the third book yawned open and, full of hubris, we palpated the gods.  The commentator (anyone have a better memory than I?) saw this as a negative, and I was inclined to agree with him at the time.

Now, in the face of some recent clusters of stimuli – an article in The New Republic asserting the incompatibility of science and revelation, Charles Darwin’s birthday, and some silly Facebook arguments on unrelated topics that went round and round in maddening circles – I want to reëvaluate that position.  

For just about everybody, reflective or not, the Universe is either a closed or an open question (true also in theoretical physics, where we cannot yet make the call as to how violent the galaxies’ redshift will become, whether the space we call home will collapse on itself or rip apart).  Either everything is subject to a scrutiny that will presumably reveal all, but must be revised in the face of any convincing evidence to the contrary (call this “scientific”) or it is to be filtered through an authoritative consciousness whose word we must trust above our senses (call this “revelatory” – I do not say “religious”).  

The folks at Harvard seemed to want it both ways with the closed-book seal, and I believe that some other “bridge” groups still want it both ways – take the Intelligent Design community, which accepts all the more certain scientific theories but, when it begins to get “weird” (complex evolutionary reasoning, exotic particles, quantum entanglement, the anthropic principle) immediately surrender to a Higher Intelligence.  The problem with this is not that they have a concept of the supernatural (and they do, deny it as they might in the courts of Kansas) but that they want to use it as a prop for a house of cards that is unlikely to be as delicate as they think it is.  Because science has a way of figuring things out that seemed impossible at first; this tendency opens people up to embarrassment when they simply attribute difficult questions to “God.”

The same goes, I’m afraid, for some a priori accounts of religions themselves.  Faced with the idea of a possible interpolation in the sacred text, or an uncomfortable pronouncement by a religious leader, they throw up their hands and end up with a whole host of angels swooping down to give Moses the knowledge of Hellenistic words coined thousands of years after his death, or whispering into the Pope’s ear that homosexuality is a disease (something geneticists might awkwardly disprove pretty soon too).  

I don’t mean this as an attack on traditional religion at all.  I consider myself to be part of that tradition, in fact, and always have, despite my morphing thoughts on the triangulation among fact, reason, and revelation.  Here’s my query: doesn’t this “god of the gaps” business, where a deus ex machina gets written into nature where (and only where) an evident contradiction has been spotted, actually shortchange God, religion, the church, and us?  Reason is humanity’s greatest gift, and to abdicate it – even abdicate it to the church – is surely a genuine self-abuse.  Certainly, the world is scary when all the books are open.  But this is the frightening freedom to which our faculty of reason entitles us, and I begin to suspect that not using it is to bury our talent under the ground.  

To answer the usual criticism, I also do not think that this is to make “man the measure of all things” or an act of hubris.  The real hubris would be to declare that reason can certainly solve every problem.  That is every bit as untestable an assertion as the wildest claim of divine intervention.  But to dismiss what is plain to the eyes with absurd arguments about the “apparent age of the universe” or what-have-you cannot really satisfy our innate inquisitiveness.  I would like to submit to your comments and questions this idea: that in subjecting everything to real, honest, and humble inquiry, we are most closely fulfilling what it means to be human, and therefore, to inhabit the imago dei.  Thoughts?


4 responses to “I will have my query.

  1. I would have to agree. I think this would be a great Facebook post as well, but I understand if you don’t want to open it up to the peanut gallery.

  2. A friend of mine who teaches geology at a community college and who is a quite firm, 6-day creationist and a careful and thoughtful scholar (I’ll leave the question of the possibility of both statements being true aside), deals with this problem by asserting that as Christians we should always look for a natural, empirically testable answer to our scientific questions, but we should not therefore reject out of hand the possibility of supernatural answers, particularly if the natural answers seem deficient. And I see no reason why a “god of the gaps” hypothesis should (in theory) lead to a scientific dead end. In principle, if no sufficiently reasonable natural causes explain a phenomenon, it seems reasonable to assert a supernatural explanation if you believe that God does act physically in the world. And if a later, natural explanation presents itself, then there is no need to hold to the supernatural explanation. This is simply the process of scientific investigation with the addition of the supernatural.

    The problem is that it never works like that. In the real world, believers get offended and feel threatened when science offers a natural explanation to what was once viewed as a supernatural event. Whenever a supernatural explanation is offered, most believers assume that it must be the final word, as opposed to a working hypothesis.

    So I suppose I would say that we should always subject everything to real, honest, humble inquiry, but there is no reason to believe that the supernatural is incompatible with such inquiry. When, however, we treat a supernatural hypothesis as certain, divine revelation, then the inquiry fails to be honest.

    But what do I know about science?


  3. Alan,

    I think your penultimate paragraph hits on the problem I have: assigning actions to God “until proven otherwise” just seems likely to end up ruining God’s reputation somewhere down the road (“only God can make a species! Oh wait. I guess we found a common ancestor of these two, never mind, we’ve got this covered without God”).

    I hope I’m never the sort of person who has such an a priori commitment to a theory that I ignore or rule out possibilities. I think that contracts the human mind. But I guess right now I can’t help suspecting that it’s better to focus on what we KNOW God does best (like give a purpose to existence or redeem souls) than on what we have no clue about (Hawking radiation, quasars, what have you). We aren’t going to discover a “purpose quark,” because “having a purpose in life” isn’t a natural process. So I feel that religion ought to lavish attention on its indisputable strong points instead of trying to play catch-up with science …

    I do think that thoughtful scholars can be 6-day Creationists, but I don’t think that thoughtful scholarship would lead someone directly to that conclusion (not with Carbon-14 and the speed of light / distance of the stars business). “Creation science” becomes an elaborate “prop” for what seems to me to be a clearly meta-physical or lyrical passage in Genesis. NB: even though I’m skeptical of ID and such, I don’t think the same kind of issues apply there.


  4. I’d should check with you here. Which isn’t something I often do! I enjoy reading a publish that will make folks think. Also, thanks for allowing me to remark!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s