The Evolutionary Times

James McGrath has recently blogged on an e-newsletter now online from Michael Dowd called "the Evolutionary Times." It seems interesting - Michael and his wife Connie Barlow are certainly enthusiastic about evolution! Ms. Barlow is a Unitarian-Universalist, according to the website, which is nice to know - we UUs are very sensible about evolution. The lessons in their "Great Story" section of the site seem very intense about teaching science as part of religious training. The religion here seems very naturalistic - very nature based.

I have mixed feelings about intensely combining science and religion. On the one hand, religion that takes science seriously and is not threatened by it is obviously a good thing. I remember two religious epiphanies of my youth connected to science. One was contemplating evolution - I remember sitting around and staring at my dog when I was a pre-teen and wondering what the heck it meant that he and I had a common ancestor at one time. (He would usually look away after a time and never gave me any feedback on the subject.) But I would think about the similarities in our eyes and (sometimes) our behavior and it "freaked me out" a bit at times. Realizing that he and I were that closely connected was a kind of epiphany. Another thing was hearing Carl Sagan say on "Cosmos" that we are all "star-stuff" and looking outside at the stars and being overwhelmed a bit by what that implied. Part of me was formed in one of those? The universe is huge, but in some ways it is kind of a small place if even I and the stars are related!

On the other hand, as I have gotten older and I have begun to wonder, is religion really about those things? One of my attractions to the Tillich approach I've been blogging about is that while it doesn't try to get in science's way by making claims about biology or physics, it also can safely ignore (to a certain extent) those sciences. After all, if religion really is about personal salvation (in some sense of that term) and finding ways to follow more perfectly the "Golden Rule" can it really make all that much difference what model of cosmology is correct? Whether or not the universe expands forever or someday experiences a "great crunch" is a fascinating question for cosmology - but can my personal salvation really be dependent on it? I'm not saying that Dowd or anyone else claims it is, but I am just thinking out loud about whether these areas really speak closely to one another, or need to.

The facts that all life on earth is related and we really are born out of stars in a literal sense, are fascinating background information to establish our inter-connectedness and so on. And contemplation of the universe, its incredible size, beauty, complexity, etc. can be inspiring. But I wonder if religion, at its core, is something more along the lines of a psychological state of mind - an orientation towards the meaning of our being that uses symbols which don't have to correspond to literal truths about anything to be effective. If so I would think that any religious experience or practice worth having or doing would drive us to be curious about our physical universe and lead us to explore it with passion, but wouldn't necessarily be based upon a particular theory or fact as its foundation.

But it is late, and I am rambling. Anyway, there is a lot to think about fishing around the newsletter and the related website for the book "Thank God for Evolution." If you are interested in the science and religion intersection, it is well worth the visit.

Tillich and the Courage to Be - Part Four

In an interlude to my (increasing slow) blogging of my reading of Paul Tillich's The Courage to Be I mentioned the importance of Baruch Spinoza to young science students (as I was once though, alas, I cannot be classified as a young anything these days). Now I get to the section Tillich devotes to Spinoza. Certainly he talks about Spinoza in a manner very differently than my experiences with Einstein or Sagan!

Tillich's approach to Spinoza starts with an assertion of a duality that I am by no means qualified to evaluate, but which I simply report. He describes later humanism (including Spinoza’s religious viewpoint) as a neo-stoicism that is different from classical stoicism in that it adopts the general Christian view of being. He says that the ancient pagan view was negative about being and creation itself and took an attitude of resignation. Christianity changed that and promoted a salvation-oriented attitude. Tillich says that modern humanism took that from Christianity and focused it on the hope for improvement through human endeavor.

Tillich explores what virtue and courage mean to Spinoza. To Spinoza, according to Tillich, virtue is the “power of acting exclusively according to one’s true nature.” Self-affirmation, the “affirmation of one’s essential being” is virtue itself. (Courage p. 21) He quotes Spinoza as writing that “[b]y courage I mean the desire whereby every man strives to preserve his own being in accordance solely with the dictates of reason.” (Courage p. 21) Self-affirmation implicates love of others, according to Spinoza - anticipating Erich Fromm he states they are inter-dependent. This self-affirmation has connections with the divine. Spinoza put it: “The power whereby each particular thing, and consequently man, preserves his being is the power of God.” Tillich states that this participation in “the infinite spiritual love with which God contemplates and loves himself, and by loving himself also loves what belongs to him, human beings.”

This can’t mean a specific “feeling” or act of love since Spinoza doesn’t even have a personal God who could have a personality to do that with. When Tillich talks of Spinoza’s God contemplating and loving himself he is talking about a God who is being itself – divine self-affirmation in that context is rather esoteric it seems to me, but has something to do, I would think, in the very act of being or continuing to be in spite of the (available?) alternative. “To be or not to be/ that is the question…” and the answer had better be “To be!” (This God of self-contemplation and loving also, by the way, brings to mind April’s descriptions to me of the Gnostic mythology! I believe in the Gnostic system this contemplation is what splits God apart and starts the ball to us “being” rolling.)

In any case, this is what explains the worth of such human self-affirmation to Tillich. This self-affirmation is not an isolated act, but is rather “participation in the universal or divine act of self-affirmation, which is the originating power in every individual act.” (Courage, p. 23) For Tillich, Spinoza’s views offer a solution to another question the ancient stoics could not answer – namely where the power that makes the conquest of desire and anxiety possible; this participation in divine self-affirmation. How this works, exactly, I must admit is a bit of a mystery to me.

Tillich concludes that in Spinoza’s system “[t]he courage to be is possible because it is participation in the self-affirmation of being itself.” Tillich states that Spinoza has a problem with another question, however, unanswered by the ancient stoics as well. That question is why so few take the road of salvation he has talked about. He concludes that it is because it is sublime and difficult, and it is therefore rare. Tillich calls this conclusion resignation rather than a call to salvation. He will next turn his attention to the courage to be found in the philosophy of Nietzsche.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Turning "giving thanks" into a holiday was an inspired idea and I have always been in places in my life on this Thanksgiving day where I have had much to be thankful for, but now is a great time in life and I must say that I have rarely had reason to be more thankful for everything we have than this year. I certainly have more blessings in my life than I deserve and first among them having these two to spend it with.

I know I am very lucky! April described our plans for the day over on her blog. I hope everyone has a wonderful day with family and friends. The picture of April and Alex was taken a few weeks ago down in Galveston. Best wishes to all!

Following SBL from a Distance

Well, this is kind of cool. My wife, April DeConick, is in Boston at the annual SBL meeting and I was chatting with her tonight and surfing around to find out what folk are saying about the meeting. Lo and Behold I happened upon Chris Brady's blog "Targuman" and he has a posting about the dinner she attended this evening and he has already put up pictures on "flickr." And so I clicked on his flickr pictures and sure enough there is a picture of April and a group of Bibliobloggers there at Dillon's! Not quite the same as being there but it sure is nice to get to see her smiling face (and only a few hours after the photo was taken)! The wonders of the modern Internet! From what she is telling me it sounds like she is (as usual at SBL) having a great time but will come back totally exhausted. That is okay, there will be plenty of time to rest up over Thanksgiving! Thanks to Chris Brady for the pictures!

Tillich and the Courage to Be: Spinoza

Tillich’s next section focuses on a philosopher that has a special place in the hearts and minds of most science minded folk interested in religion: Baruch Spinoza. Our interest in Spinoza comes from the fact that most people I know who were interested in physics and or math when young admired Albert Einstein and held him as a kind of hero. In a famous response to a Rabbi’s inquiry about whether he believed in God, Einstein wrote:

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

In my teens, let’s just say “if it was good enough for Einstein…” Of course in later life hero worship wanes buts formative interests developed by them doesn’t necessarily. Carl Sagan (probably influenced in much the same way) talks of the God of Spinoza and Einstein in his excellent essay “A Sunday Sermon” found in his book Broca’s Brain, and in his book The Varieties of Scientific Experience (based on Sagan’s 1985 Gifford Lectures – the 1985 offering of the same lecture series Tillich participated in the years 1953 and 1954 when he spoke there about his systematic theology).

Interestingly Tillich and Einstein had a bit of an intersection when Tillich responded to Einstein’s famous essay “Science and Religion.” Einstein’s essay, which was written for a 1940 conference entitled “Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion” at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, was highly influential on me growing up and on many science students I knew. In it he explicitly expressed his denial of belief in a “personal god.” Sounding to me much like Tillich and John Hick, Einstein said

A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied by thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this super-personal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities.

Einstein never meant for his denial of a personal God to imply a denial of God in total, but it was perceived in many quarters as just that. For a great discussion of this and the Tillich link, see Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion. Tillich argued that Einstein was being unfair to the idea of a personal God by attacking the most primitive version of it. He felt that was equivalent to attacking physics on the basis of outdated theories. (Jammer at 109.) The response to Einstein’s paper by Tillich reminds me in general terms of the discussions that frequent the subject on the net – for example, James McGrath has had many (it seems to me) interactions with atheists, and atheistic or agnostic literature, of this sort. See for example his blog post Why I am a Christian.

I can see both sides of this, but I tend to agree with the McGrath point of view – there are sophisticated ways of being Christian that don’t conflict with science like fundamentalism does. On the other hand I also understand the atheist point of view on this – the analogy with physics that Tillich uses, doesn’t quite work. Why? Because even if some people are unsophisticated about physics and cling to outdated theories, the bulk of folk don’t – especially professional representative of physics in the field (professors, research scientists and the sort). The personal God that Einstein argued against, however, is part of mainstream Christian belief in the sense that most Christians believe in one and most mainstream churches’ creeds are closer to that “primitive” belief than they are Tillich’s. When the atheist argues against the idea of a personal God that answers prayers and behaves much like a very powerful and smart human he or she is not arguing against an abandoned primitive theology that has given way to Tillich or Borg. The views of Tillich and Borg seem to be by far the minority – even among educated church leaders and some very well educated theologians.

Despite that I think the attempt to find different ways of being Christian rather than throwing Christianity out the window is a noble and important one. If only there was a church that allowed something like a Tillich-ian viewpoint to be compatible with it’s official doctrine. Unitarian-Universalist does, sort of, but its focus seems too broad to me to allow for much development of even a Christianity that acknowledges the symbolic nature of its mythology.

Survey Shows Scientists Sensible about Teaching Evolution

In a survey of around 450 biology or biological anthropology professors in Texas, 94% of them disapproved of the Texas State Board of Education language requiring students be taught the "weaknesses" of evolution theory.

"With 94 percent of Texas faculty ... telling me it (teaching the weaknesses) shouldn't be there, I tend to believe them," said Raymond Eve, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Arlington who did the study.

This survey is no surprise of course. The Discovery Institute spokesman (Casey Luskin) criticized both the survey and the character of the individuals taking part.

"This self-selecting survey shows just how ideological the Darwinists have become because they are now resorting to scientific votes to reinforce a climate of intimidation that shuts down scientific criticism of evolution," Luskin said.

Kathy Miller, President of the Austin-based group Texas Freedom Network, rightly pointed out that our science education should not be "watered-down" and "politicized."

"Teach evolution and don't water it down with creationism, intelligent design or phony weaknesses," Miller said.

Amen.

Tillich and the Courage to Be - Part Three

I've been incredibly busy at work the last few weeks - six trials over less than two weeks. I have one this week, but it shouldn't be too bad and it is nice to turn my attention to Tillich again - continuing my journaling of reading The Courage to Be again.

After his discussion of "Courage and Fortitude" Tillich, in The Courage to Be, turns to the "Courage and Wisdom: the Stoics." Tillich says that Stoicism is the "only real alternative to Christianity" in the Western world.

The Courage to be in Stoicism is based on the centrality of Reason in being. But this is not reason in the sense of logic. Tillich says

Reason for the Stoics is the Logos, the meaningful structure of reality as a whole and of the human mind in particular.... [R]eason is man's true or essential nature, in comparison with which everything else is accidental. The courage to be is the courage to affirm one's own reasonable nature over against what is accidental in us. (Courage at 12-13.)

The enemies of this Reason are desires and fear. The Stoics, Tillich says, knew (long before FDR said it) that what we have most to fear is "fear itself." Each day we live brings us closer to death. The "final hour" doesn't cause that - it is intrinsic to life itself and the fear of death arriving (since it always is anyway) is illusory.

There is a distinguishing here between natural and unnatural desires. They are not saying all desire is bad or needs to be extinguished. But "natural" desire, they argue, is limited. Our desires that come from "false opinions" are unlimited and transcend our needs and therefore "any possible satisfaction." The truly wise person affirms their participation in the universal and therefore transcends the fear of death or even "the gods."

There is also an interesting distinction between God's reaction to suffering and the human one. The Stoic, Tillich says, believed that God is beyond suffering while human beings are able to suffer but can rise above it. Human beings need not "let suffering conquer the center of his [or her] rational being." In this way the wise human is actually "above" God who is "beyond" suffering, not above it. Tillich says this distinction (between being "beyond" and being "above") illustrates the main difference between the "resignation" in Stoicism and the "salvation" qualities in Christianity.

What Tillich says the Stoic doesn't explain is how the human being becomes "wise" or Reason-Centered. They acknowledged that most people were not wise but instead were "fools" in relation to their system - in the bondage of desires and fears. Most people, they thought, were in conflict with their essential nature of Reason and therefore "unable to affirm their essential being courageously." (p. 16.) What is missing, Tillich says, for the Stoic is that absent from the Stoic's despair is personal guilt. He notes Socrates saying that he has never done anything wrong in public or private life. The Stoics had a "general attitude of superiority" and does not see the universal fall from essential rationality as a reason for guilt. The courage to be of the Stoic is the courage "to affirm oneself in spite of fate and death, but it is not the courage to affirm oneself in spite of sin and death." (p. 17.)

Congratulations to Barack Obama!

As an Illinois native I am especially proud to congratulate Barack Obama on his historic and improbable rise to the United States Presidency!

Evolution in Texas Blog

Work has been crazy lately with one of the attorneys in our office getting called away on family business, doubling my trial load for the next two weeks - yikes.

I haven't been able to get to blogging recently, but I did come across a blog the Houston Chronicle is doing featuring several individuals active in the Evolution-Creation debate in Texas. It is called Evo.Sphere and it looks good at first glance.

Go and vote on Tuesday, and I will get back to more detailed blogging when I get a window here or there!