The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

by dark angle 239 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • kepler
    kepler

    Think this is a great topic with great responses. Had to wonder how I could add anything beneficial to it, save for a matter that was lingering at the back of my mind. As luck would have it, someone or something came to my aid this morning in the e-mail. It was in a circular I usually disregard, but the interview with astronomer Owen Gingerich ( not to be confused with Newt Gingrich!) discussed both science and religion - matters with which Professor Gingerich (Harvard - astronomy) is very much concerned.

    Some excerpts:

    The professor emeritus is well known for cataloguing every surviving sixteenth century copy of Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus’ seminal work, De Revolutionibus. (Photo: Mark Zastrow)Professor emeritus Owen Gingerich’s office is like a dragon’s lair, if the dragon in question was fond of books. Tucked in a corner of Harvard’s astronomy building and filled with the usual accumulation of dusty tomes, the office also hosts a paper replica plane, a perfectly preserved fossil, a model Renaissance telescope, and a large chunk of one of the ten most common elements in the universe...

    Solving mysteries even extends to the mystery of God. In his book God’s Universe, which collects three lectures he gave at Harvard, Gingerich explains his views on science and religion with the same logic and methods he uses to investigate all problems. From a sheltered rural Mennonite to a world traveler to a respected scientist to a passionate historian, Gingerich has maintained the faith that brought his ancestors to America many generations ago.

    Owen Gingerich was born in 1930 in Iowa, from a long line of Mennonites. His first introduction to the world outside his safe and sleepy Midwest home was a mission of mercy he took with his father in the months following the end of World War II. His father, like his son an ardent pacifist, took a temporary job as supervisor of the U.S.S. Stephen R. Mallory - a liberty ship bearing 847 horses bound for Poland as part of UN relief efforts. He roped his son into becoming a cowboy - helping to keep as many of the horses alive as possible over the long and accident-prone voyage.

    It would be natural to assume that an astronomer turned historian, who thinks like a scientist and studies the most controversial astronomers in history, might begin to doubt the worth of religion. Renaissance Italy in particular was notorious for persecuting astronomers, although not always for their science. Galileo died under house arrest and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. But the line of faithful Gingerich Mennonites remains unbroken. He sees the universe through the lens of science, but with the awe of devotion. For him, there is no conflict between science and God, only between man and ignorance.

    For Gingerich, as for many scientists, the only contemptible people are those who refuse even to look. Those who secretly fear that their faith cannot stand up to the cold logic of science. Those who, when they perceive a threat to their faith through science, actively ignore any evidence that might breach their protective layer of ignorance. People like Galileo’s contemporaries who decried his work but would not look though a telescope to see for themselves the moons of Jupiter or the phases of Venus. Or even people today who believe that they cannot hold both evolution in their brain and God in their heart.

    To inspire better relations between faith and science, Gingerich has begun research for a new book on some exciting advances in the theory of evolution, interspersed with ruminations on the supposed conflict between science and religion. For Gingerich, science explains everything within its’ framework, but God can be seen in the details. Every random chance that led to the evolution of intelligent life could be seen as stemming from a guiding force. But Gingerich believes it is a force that uses science, and does not need to circumvent or overrule it. Science and logic were built into the design.

    ----

    So that's something of a lodestar position. If we investigate God's creation and find that it isn't as we were led to understand it, then we continue to examine it and search for the higher truth or stay buoyed by the faith that something better will come of it: A faith intaking part in God's plan, whatever that might be. For the scientist, the inventor, the crusader for a cause, it might not be riches or acknowledgement in this life. Or the next for that matter. But perhaps in the overall balance they or we will serve honorably and give something of value to others.

  • ziddina
    ziddina
    "Dr. Owen Jay Gingerich (born 1930) is a former Research Professor of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard University, and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. In addition to his research and teaching, he has written many books on the history of astronomy.
    Gingerich is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and the International Academy of the History of Science. He has been active in the American Scientific Affiliation, a society of evangelical scientists , and is on the Templeton Foundation's Board of Trustees..."
    "Gingerich believes "there is a God as a designer, who happens to be using the evolutionary process to achieve larger goals - which are, as far as we human beings can see, [the development of] self-consciousness and conscience." He has written that "I ... believe in intelligent design, lowercase ‘i' and ‘d'. But I have trouble with Intelligent Design - uppercase ‘I' and ‘D' - a movement widely seen as anti-evolutionist."..."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gingerich

    About the "John Templeton" Foundation...

    "Mission:
    The John Templeton Foundation serves as a philanthropic catalyst for discoveries relating to the Big Questions of human purpose and ultimate reality. We support research on subjects ranging from complexity, evolution, and infinity to creativity, forgiveness, love, and free will. We encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians and between such experts and the public at large, for the purposes of definitional clarity and new insights.
    Our vision is derived from the late Sir John Templeton's optimism about the possibility of acquiring "new spiritual information" and from his commitment to rigorous scientific research and related scholarship. ..."

    http://www.templeton.org/who-we-are/about-the-foundation/mission

    Bold and hi-lites mine...

    So.....

    Owen Gingrich still believes in that late-Bronze-Age early-Iron-Age Middle-Eastern male nomads' volcano 'god', eh...

    How nice for him.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    Owen Gingrich still believes in that late-Bronze-Age early-Iron-Age Middle-Eastern male nomads' volcano 'god', eh.

    No....

    " Gingerich believes "there is a God as a designer, who happens to be using the evolutionary process to achieve larger goals - which are, as far as we human beings can see, [the development of] self-consciousness and conscience." He has written that "I ... believe in intelligent design, lowercase ‘i' and ‘d'. But I have trouble with Intelligent Design - uppercase ‘I' and ‘D' - a movement widely seen as anti-evolutionist."..."
  • ziddina
    ziddina

    Yes, burns, I saw that... But it's a convenient compromise for a man whose career largely depends upon the scientific community's good will...

    I assume you also noticed his membership in an evangelical scientists' group??

  • kepler
    kepler

    Ziddina,

    RE: But it's a convenient compromise for a man whose career largely depends upon the scientific community's good will...I assume you also noticed his membership in an evangelical scientists' group??

    ----

    As for myself, I am not interested in the particulars of Gingerich's evangelical beliefs, nor more than similar or dissimilar beliefs of his colleagues down the hall. This man functions in the scientific community, searches for natural truths that will shape his philosophy and does not take the position that "science has refuted religion". The kicker for me was this:

    For Gingerich, as for many scientists, the only contemptible people are those who refuse even to look. Those who secretly fear that their faith cannot stand up to the cold logic of science. Those who, when they perceive a threat to their faith through science, actively ignore any evidence that might breach their protective layer of ignorance. People like Galileo’s contemporaries who decried his work but would not look though a telescope to see for themselves the moons of Jupiter or the phases of Venus. Or even people today who believe that they cannot hold both evolution in their brain and God in their heart.

    None of us have to chose between a theocrat and a technocrat.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    None of us have to chose between a theocrat and a technocrat.

    Nuance.

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.— 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' —Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays:_First_Series/Self-Reliance

  • ziddina
    ziddina

    The problem with such platitudes is that his base model of "deity" is still very much based on the late-Bronze-Age early-Iron-Age Middle-Eastern nomadic males' 'god'...

    You'll notice he never refers to "God" as "Goddess"... He never refers to 'deity' as "IT".

    No, he is still mentally stuck in the Middle-Eastern male 'god' framework - though he attempts to disguise it with philosophical meanderings...

    "Active in the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), a society of evangelical scientists, Gingerich will narrate a television series the ASA is planning for release in 1987. The series will address "five hard questions on the nature of the universe," stressing Christianity's influence on many of the founders of the scientific revolution. ...
    Professor Gingerich has often expressed criticism of other Christians in the sciences who invoke a "God of the gaps" to explain scientific mysteries awaiting resolution. While Gingerich doesn't think much of attempts to prove the existence of God using science, he does believe his knowledge affords him a special appreciation of the intricacy of God's design. Says Gingerich. "Once you have made this leap of faith [belief in a 'god'...] ... then there are lots of things in science that fall together in a beautiful kind of way and seem quite convincing."

    From: http://www.discovery.org/a/1248 Bold and hi-lites mine.

  • ziddina
    ziddina

    Because he's expressed a decided preference for a deity that I've already figured out cannot exist, his "neutrality" and "impartiality" are severely compromised for me.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    The problem with such platitudes is that his base model of "deity" is still very much based on the late-Bronze-Age early-Iron-Age Middle-Eastern nomadic males' 'god'...
    You'll notice he never refers to "God" as "Goddess"... He never refers to 'deity' as "IT".

    So? Neither do 99% of people, including atheists, when they refer to the God concept. That is the convention. I do not believe God has a gender, either, but I still use that term as a placeholder for the idea.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    Because he's expressed a decided preference for a deity that I've already figured out cannot exist, his "neutrality" and "impartiality" are severely compromised for me.

    Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit