Yeah, the Mac is done. Well, to be fair, it is just the hard drive and that will be taken care of next week. Apple is pretty good at servicing their stuff. But in the meantime, I will be less available....
A few things from this week. A professor friend died last weekend. We weren't close. In fact, when my buddy called with the news, it was not an issue. I hadn't seen him in years. Never worked with him, but I had been to his house for dinner. Gave him a ride home from the hospital when he had a stroke. He had a dog named Dave. Great dog. Dog who would bark when he heard that "republicans were in the yard." Dave thought cats were Repubs.
So I went to the memorial service. And I am glad I did. He was a great teacher and a fine man. I am sorry he is gone. I didn't realize that I will miss him, but I will. Rest easy.
_____
I have been a bit of a bear lately. I have three classes to teach next week and am not sure I am ready. I am sure my Texas friend would agree. I have been pretty hard on him regarding creation and evolution. I don't think he knows why it bugs me so much that he would want to teach creation in science class. But it does. It bugs me.
And here is why. Again, I was listening to Christian radio on the way back from my guitar lesson. What? You want me to listen to ZZ Top or Bad Company? Anyway, this woman--I think her name is June Hunt--was on. She seems like a nice lady, and I have heard her say things that I admired. But she has this annoying habit of becoming breathy whenever she makes what she thinks is a spiritual point. You know, when she says, "God believes" whatever, her voice turns breathy and airy, as if the tone will make the point spiritual. It doesn't.
She spoke on forgiveness tonight. I am all for it. I have no idea what it means, but I am all for it. I believe that forgiving others is not only something Christ taught, it is good for us. But the way Christians talk about it bugs me. She said it. We are understandably angry about being hurt, but we have to "turn that over to God." Really? Because I don't have the faintest idea what that means. It sounds like some netherworld in between holding on to our anger and repressing it. There are other options. One is to address the anger, and come to a point where you can forgive the other person that debt they owe you. You do it for you, not for them. They have to forgive themselves for what they did to you. But you can release them.
But it isn't magic. Theology for so many Christians is so much magic. And the Christians on the air waves don't help. Everywhere you turn is someone blathering something. And that something is a pretty complex theological thought. But they present it as if it is simple. Then you hear some person call in with their question. Clearly, they have no clue. But they don't know they don't have a clue. They haven't been encouraged to think broadly. They have been told to follow that inner heart relationship. That is the good news. The bad news is that they don't realize that that inner voice is sometimes themselves.
How does this all relate to evolution? I am convinced that the evolution/creation question is one of epistemology. It is about "how we know what we know." Why am I surprised that so many people espouse creation? Especially when they don't know the first thing about evolution. Or science. But they can say that evolution is "unproven."
Sounds to me like a layperson looking at an xray and disagreeing with the radiologist. How the fuck would they know?
Christianity has turned into something mindless. Something that abounds with ridiculous cliches that mean nothing. "Living in the word," or "turning something over to God." I am sure there is a theological thought somewhere, but I will be damned if I can figure it out. It sounds like a cliche to me. Something that people throw around. Because they like it and it means something to them. They believe it.
And belief is a fine thing. Faith is a fine thing. But it isn’t the same thing as knowledge. Not better or worse. Different. Don’t confuse the two. Saying that you don’t “buy evolution” isn’t a refutation. Your “opinion” is really meaningless here—as is mine.
What do I fear here? I fear that conservatives have turned knowledge and truth on its ear. It is so personally based that each individual can just look to God (sometimes just the inner self) and say, “do I believe that?”
That isn’t how we try to understand our world. It isn’t how history is produced, nor how scientists practice their craft. Presenting creation as if it is the same “way of knowing” as evolution is a distortion. It is wrong. It is needless. It is misleading.
______
I think my professor friend would have agreed. He wanted people to think deeply and question their assumptions. I don't think he was a man of faith. But he understood the difference between faith and science. And he thought we should too.
Anyway…
4 comments:
In my argumentative writing classes, I tell my students that they need to know why they believe what they believe. It isn't enough that Mama or Preacher Bob said so, and it certainly isn't enough to say "but the bible says..." or "my faith tells me..." when trying to back up your beliefs to an audience that doesn't necessarily believe in the bible or in God.
About the evolution/creationism debate, one of my (Christian) friends said--this is loosely paraphrased--you don't have to understand how the world began in order to understand concrete scientific principles. How the world began doesn't change how atoms bond together to form molecules.
I feel for you. School starts on the 29th, and I'll be teaching five English classes.
There are people who stiff believe the world is flat, thankfully they haven't elected a President yet, but that may be coming
Streak, I think your proposal to think about this debate in terms of different epistemologies is quite useful. Science and religion are different ways of approaching truth, both with capital and small T's.
Science is essentially a system of falsification. We can't prove much, but we can falsify our hypothesis. It is a self-contained system of inquiry into the nature and operation of the world around us. Truths are essentially "truths," tentative explanations that have yet to be falsified. Responsible, humble scientists recognize the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and recognize their field as a tool humans use to develop our understanding.
Similarly, religion is a means for understanding the world and our place in it. Religious truth is based more on revelation than inquiry, whether the approach is literal interpretation of scripture (eg "God said"), direct revelation ("900 foot tall Jesus told me" xyz), miracles, or other means. Generally speaking, there is no system of falsification, although some religious traditions do declare certain doctrines to be apostasy, heresy, and so forth based on their own interpretation. Humble people of faith might well recognize that God may have told me something quite different than they were told.
From this perspective, science and religion are not really opposites any more than chemistry and history are. They ask different questions, follow different practices, and address different issues.
Not the usual glib, pseudo-clever quip, init?
Streak- I just got back from a meeting and while driving heard an interview with leadership from Texas Freedom Network. Looks like they are watching out for us down here on these issues. I wasn't aware of this group before but will check their site regularly from now on.
BB
Post a Comment