Charlotte’s Faith Problem

His problem doesn’t seem to be with religion per se, but with the anti-science stance taken by some people of faith. He would do well not to alienate the vast majority of religious people, those who trust in science and reason, by making his argument about “religion” rather than the real problem: ignorance (intentional or otherwise).

I give him two weeks before the bigots run him out of his job.

If you trust in Science and reason and aren’t just giving it lip service then you would not be religious. Religion is the ultimate exercise in overlooking lack of evidence (faith) and believing in the unscientific.

Christians hate science for good reason, it is diametrically opposed to their beliefs.

From March 2002 the office on the Prime Minister (http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page2305.asp)

‘CREATIONIST’ SCHOOLS

Asked whether the Prime Minister believed that creationist theory and evolutionary theory had equal merit, the PMOS pointed to the OFSTED report on Emmanuel City Technology College, which had been produced this year. The report had stated, “The curriculum is well designed. The college achieves very high standards of attendance, behaviour and results. Students make very good progress. Teaching is good. Leadership and management are outstandingly effective in promoting these high standards.” In addition, the 2001 GCSE results for the school showed a very high rate of performance: 96% of pupils achieved five A*-C grades.

In terms of the school’s approach to teaching science, pupils were taught that the fossil record was evidence of evolution and how variation and selection might lead to evolution or to extinction. They were also taught how scientific controversies could arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence. The important point here was that the teaching at the school conformed to the national curriculum. Yes, two points of view were put, but the point was both were put equally. Questioned again about the Prime Minister’s view regarding the merits of the two theories, the PMOS said that in the Prime Minister’s view the school was performing well within the national curriculum and that it was important to recognise diversity.

Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old, the PMOS said he was not aware the Prime Minister had expressed a view on creationism. The point here was that OFSTED was satisfied that standards at the school had been met.

In answer to questions about faith schools, the PMOS said we had dealt with this issue a number of times in previous briefings. It was important to recognise that all state schools had to observe the national curriculum. Faith schools which were independent did not.

The official government response to a petition to support faith schools teaching creationism (27 August 2007) is as follows:

The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or “faith schools” as they are commonly known.

Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country.

Religious Education (RE) encourages respect for those holding different beliefs and helps promote pupils’ moral, cultural and mental development. There is scope for pupils to discuss the origins of the Earth and living things in religious education lessons, including different traditional faith views of how the world began.

Evolution is a scientific theory. As part of the science curriculum, pupils learn about scientific theories as established bodies of scientific knowledge with extensive supporting evidence, and how evidence can form the basis for experimentation to test hypotheses.

(http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12950.asp)

Sadly Great Britain isn’t immune to this creationist (giving is a capital C seems somehow to give it credence) nonsense although I hope that people laugh more openly at it over here.

I have read this blog with great interest since purchasing your book. I have commented very sparingly but have enjoyed reading the posts and comments of all. As a person of faith and someone who lived quite near Charlotte, NC when I was going to college, I found this article different from what I was used to seeing in Charlotte news programs and newspapers. I went to a very small, religious university outside of Charlotte. However, my university had many people with science majors such as biology, chemistry, etc. The school has just recently opened a pharmacy school as well. I find it interesting that the author finds people in Charlotte to be closed minded to the ideas of science and the evidence that science provides to answer questions that we (humans) are grappling with. I did not find this to be the case at all. The people that I conversed with were very open to both science and faith and how the two could work together to form a worldview rather than science and faith being at opposite ends of the spectrum and not being able to co-exist. However, I have not lived in Charlotte for the past 10 years so obviously things could have changed in that time. Just my thoughts.

I think it’s great that a newspaper in such a conservative Christian area would give prominent placement to what’s bound to be a very controversial point of view. However, I too wonder how long it will take before the poor man is hounded out of his job or at least browbeaten into shutting up in future. I don’t envy him as his opens his email over the next few weeks. Whew, there’s going to be some vitriol!

but living in a “family neighborhood”, church is a constant discussion point among PTA members, Girl Scout & Boy Scout meetings, swim meets, etc. Trying to get children and/or adults together on a Sunday or Wednesday is nigh impossible, due to church conflicts.

Yes. My sister is a fundy and she moved there a couple of years ago to get away from “godless” So Cal. I’m sure she’s thrilled with the religiosity of the area. Gag.

I appreciate the comments of those that live in Charlotte presently. I would notice many of the big churches when I was in Charlotte but I guess most of the people I conversed with and most of the people that are publishing comments about the piece in the paper are not the same. To put it another way, the people that I surrounded myself with would generally not be the people writing the editorial pieces in response to the article. As is generally true, the people with the “fundamentalist” beliefs are usually the ones that will feel the most threatened by such an article and feel the need to respond. The more moderate people (as I consider myself) would just take the piece as informational and interesting, maybe even having conversations about it, but not write in to the editors of the paper in response as they most likely would not feel threatened by it. Again…just my thoughts. Again, I can appreciate that Charlotte is a very different place from when I lived close by but not directly in the city.

Christians hate science for good reason, it is diametrically opposed to their beliefs.

I’m a Christian and don’t hate science.

And scientific conclusions based on naturalistic presuppositions are opposed to Christian belief, not science itself.

And science doesn’t contain presuppositions or it isn’t science. It is simply that only naturalistic things lend themselves to scientific explanation. I guess it is only natural since they actually exist.

James,
Everyone has presuppositions. You begin the scientific process by assuming that ultimately all truth is testable and discoverable by human reason. You assume your autonomy. You assume that supernatural events have not occurred (hence looking for a natural explanation of everything). You assume that firings of neurons in your brain and the brains of others are objectively meaningful; in fact, until you give an account of why firings of neurons in your brain – a mass of atoms – are meaningful and can accurately gauge reality, your position is internally incoherent and utterly unreasonable.
If you are going to make the scientific method and human reason the ultimate arbiter of truth, you have excluded God from the beginning, because God by definition is Himself the arbiter of truth.
When Adam fell in the garden, he fell because he made himself God’s judge and trusted his autonomy over God’s word and command. When Jesus came through the temptation in the wilderness, He passed because He submitted Himself to God’s Word – each time He replied with “It is written”.

The bible and science are polar opposites.

Only in that science starts with the authority of human reason and the Bible starts with the authority of God. The word of God has to regulate everything, and in that sense they may be “opposites”. But certainly the Bible allows and encourages us to learn all we can about the world around us, and to see it for what it is and use it rightly.

Science is not despite your assertion about presupposition. There may well be things that are not knowable. Science is simply the struggle to find answers without starting with a presupposition.

Your presupposition may be something as simple as what you take for your authority. You take human reason, Christians take the Word of God. or, you might even say you start in “neutral”. Christians don’t. We start under the authority of our Creator to tell us what creation is and what it is for. If you had a watch, you might take it apart and try to figure out how it works, and you might even figure it out to a great extent, but it would be much better to talk to the watchmaker.

You rightly assume that supernatural events have not occurred because every instance where it was assumed that supernatural events were responsible in the past have been proven wrong and science found the answer.

“Science’s” answer to things such as the virgin birth and the resurrection is simply that they did not actually occur. Again, it’s a presupposition.

This is a position Christians like to often take putting the burden of proof on science that they never hold to religion. I say until you can prove that they are not and that even one aspect of god, the supernatural, the virgin birth, resurrection or any other of the mythology is true that your position is utter nonsense. Live up to the standard you set for others.

I am freely admitting that I start by assuming the truthfulness of God and His Word. Starting there I can take the usefulness of the mind and the objective nature of reality for granted, because those are things taken for granted in God’s Word. If I’m trying t “put the burden of proof” on you”, what I am trying to do is get you to make your own worldview account for itself.

On the same hand if that mass of neurons cannot accurately gauge reality then they can also not be trusted to interpret the bible or Gods will or even the existence of God.

Now you’re mixing worldviews. This is a category confusion.

Tell that to those brave men who struggled for centuries to advance science under penalty of death from the church. Tell it to those burned at the stake or hanged for being witches or simply whores. Science has led us to the reason we have now certainly not religion if anything it has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

I don’t have to defend the church’s mistakes any more than you have to defend the mistakes of atheists like Stalin.

Sciences answer to the virgin birth and the resurrection is that there is no known way and the odds are set at such a way to be impossible for them to happen. The odds against them happening are higher than those we take for proof in dna testing. That is not a presupposition it is scientific fact.

The watchmaker example is an old and tired one that needs some revision as you stated it. I could take a watch apart and find out exactly how it works or I could talk to a watchmaker that is invisible, nobody has ever seen or talked to.

Now you’re mixing worldviews. This is a category confusion.

No it is a classic response from a religious apologist caught in a trap of their own making. If as you say the brain cant be proven to be reliable then it cant be reliable for ANY purpose including that of knowing a God. Its more double standard claptrap where the burden of proof is always for the nonbeliever.

I don’t have to defend the church’s mistakes any more than you have to defend the mistakes of atheists like Stalin.

I don’t have to defend Stalin because he is one man no more than I would ask you to defend Hitler who was a Christian. The church as an organization has a long history of not only not embracing science but doing everything they can to quash it. This directly counters your argument that the bible allows and encourages us to learn all we can about the world around us, and to see it for what it is and use it rightly. Or maybe thats just this weeks interpretation of the bible.